Paripoornan, J. - (1.) Special leave granted in both cases. The main appeal is the one arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 20097 of 1996. The said appeal is filed against the judgment and order of the Gujarat High Court rendered in L.P.A. No. 373 of 1996. The appellant in both the appeals is Sri Ashok G Hurra (the husband) and the respondent in both the appeals is Rupa Ashok, Hurra (the wife). We will deal with the facts in the main appeal which is covered by Special Leave Petition No. 20097 of 1996.
(2.) The marriage between the appellant (husband) and the respondent (wife) was solemnized on 3-12-1970 according to the Hindu rites and custom at Ahmedabad. The couple have no issue. It seems difference of opinion cropped up between the parties. Presumably it persisted and so they could not stay together. On 30-6-1993, the wife left the matrimonial home. Thereafter, the couple started residing separately. On 21-8-1994, a joint petition for divorce was filed under S. 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, It was signed by both the parties and both of them appeared before Court, Both of them are highly educated and intelligent and managing their own affairs and business. In the joint petition, it was averred that all the matters regarding ornaments, clothes and other movables were settled between them and the wife had renounced her right to claim maintenance. The parties simply sought a decree of dissolution of the marriage by mutual consent.
(3.) Under S. 13B (2) of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), on a motion by both the parties, six months after the date of presentation of the petition under sub-section (1) of the Act, and not later than eighteen months, the Court, shall, after enquiry, pass a decree of divorce by mutual consent. On 4-4-1985, the husband alone moved an application praying for passing a decree of divorce. On this motion, the Court issued notice to the wife. It is seen that the hearing of the petition commenced on 15-4-1985. On that day, on that day, on the joint application of the advocates of both the parties, the case was adjourned. Subsequently, the case stood posted to various dates and for one reason or other, it got itself adjourned. In the meanwhile, attempts were made by the trial Judge to bring about reconciliation between the husband and the wife. But, it was not successful. Such attempts were on 30-9-1985, 10-10-1985, 30-10-1985, 9-12-1985, 16-12-1985, 10-1-1986 etc. Most of the requests for adjournments were made jointly by the advocates appearing for the parties. In all such requests, mention was made that talks of compromise/settlement between the parties were going on.;