The petitioner married the respondent on 26.9.1976. They were separated on 2.8.1978. The petitioner filed a petition against his wife for divorce under the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter 'the Act' for short) on the ground of adultery, desertion and cruelty. An ex-parte decree of divorce was passed on 27.9.1984. The respondent filed an application to setaside the ex-parte decree which was allowed. This order is now under challenge in this revision petition.

Learned counsel appearing for both the sides seek to invoke section 13-B of the Act. Sub-section (1) of section 13-B enables both the parties to the marriage to present a petition for dissolution of marriage on the ground that they have been living separately for a period of one year or more, that they have not been able to live together and they have mutually agreed that the marriage should be dissolved. Sub-section (2) states that on the motion of both the parties made not earlier than six months thereafter and not later than eighteen months thereafter, if the petition is not withdrawn in the meantime, the Court shall, on being satisfied that a marriage has been solemnized and that the averments in the petition are true, pass a decree of divorce.

Both parties have presented an application under section 13-B before me stating that they have been living separately since 1978; that there is no chance of reconciliation and praying that a decree may be passed.

I may also incidentally refer to the fact that after the ex-parte decree passed by the lower Court, the petitioner has re-married on 23.6.1985.

The facts and circumstances of the case clearly warrant invocation of Sec.13- B of the Act The petition under Sec. 13-B can be presented either in the trial Court or in the appellate Court. The provision under Sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 13-B is to ensure locus penitentiae for the parties and also to ensure the outer time limit for passing the decree. In appropriate cases, the High Court may dispense with technicalities in the broader interest of justice and the parties. I am satisfied that the marriage had been solemnized, that the averments are true and it is necessary in the interest of justice to pass a decree of divorce, in substitution of the decree passed by the lower Court.

The parties have a son named Gaurav Kumar now aged 16 years. He is a student of XIth standard. The respondent is an officer in State Bank of India. The petitioner is an officer in the B.H.E.L. The petitioner has paid maintenance for the son at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month from August 1981 to December 1981 and at the rate of Rs. 400/- per month from January 1992 till the end of December 1994. Concerned about future of this boy, I suggested to the petitioner that he should make a reasonable provision for the maintenance, education and extraordinary expenses of the son. The petitioner is present in Court. He has submitted' through his counsel that he is prepared to continue to make payment at the rate of Rs. 400/- per month till his son completes his education and secures employment and in addition, he is prepared to deposit Rs. 60,000/- in the name of his son in the Monthly Income Scheme (Post Office) which will fetch monthly interest of Rs. 650/-. It appears that the principal will be paid at the end of 6 years with 10% bonus. The offer is a fair one and deserves to be accepted. Since the respondent is an officer in State Bank of India, I do not think it appropriate to make any provision for her.

In the result, the revision is disposed of as follows:

(i) The ex-parte decree for divorce passed by the lower Court is set aside;

(ii) Instead, a decree for divorce declaring the marriage to be dissolved is passed under section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955;

(iii) Petitioner is directed to pay at the rate of Rs. 4001- (Rupees Four Hundred) per month for the maintenance of his son Gaurav Kumar until the latter completes education and se