M.M.KUMAR, J. - (1.) THIS petition filed under Section 227 of the Constitution prays for dispensing with the statutory period of six months required for issuance of a divorce decree by mutual consent under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for brevity, 'the Act'). The petition filed before the learned District Judge has been entertained and the same has been adjourned to 29.7.2006, which is a period after the expiry of the statutory limit of six months.
(2.) NOTICE of the petition has been issued. Mr. G.G.S. Chauhan has put in appearance along with the husband-respondent. Both the learned counsel have drawn my attention to joint petition filed by the parties (Annexure P-1) and their respective statements, Annexures P-2 and P-3, recorded on 16.12.2005. According to both the learned counsel, the wife-petitioner as well as the husband-respondent have been living separately from each other since 10-12- 2004 because after solemnization of marriage on 5.12.2004 they resided together only for a few days. The following statement made by the wife- petitioner would be relevant in this regard, (which is identical to that of husband-respondent) which is in consonance with the pleadings in para 4 of the petition filed under Section 13-B of the Act : "My marriage was solemnized on 5.12.2004 with Mr. Kunal Gupta petitioner No. 1 at Amritsar according to Hindu rites by way of lawan phere. After the marriage, we resided together as husband and wife and out of this wedlock, no child was born. Due to temperamental differences we could not adjust with each other and I am living separate from petitioner No. 1 since 10th December, 2004. There is no chance of our living as husband and wife in future. I want that my marriage be dissolved by way of mutual consent. I have received back all my dowry articles from petitioner No. 1, have received my past, present and future maintenance towards my permanent alimony. I have nothing due from the petitioner No. 1. My marriage be dissolved by way of mutual consent." After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the statements of the wife-petitioner as well as that of husband-respondent, I am of the considered view that the period of six months deserve to be curtailed as the parties have been living separately from each other since 10.12.2004. It has also been brought to my notice that the wife-petitioner is likely to get married and some arrangements are already in the offing. However, because of the pendency of the divorce petition, the marriage could not be solemnized. In support of the curtailment of statutory period of six months, learned counsel for the wife-petitioner has placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Sneh Prabba v. Ravinder Kumar, 1996(1) RRR 333 : AIR 1995 SC 2170, as well as on various judgments of this Court in Jasbir Singh v. Smt. Mahindro Devi, 2004(3) RCR(Civil) 170 : 2004(2) HLR 257; Suresh Kumar Batra v. Smt. Varsha Batra, 1994(3) RRR 607 : 1994(2) HLR 510; Navjot Kaur v. Balwinder Singh, 2002(4) RCR(Civil) 521 : 2003(1) HLR 29; Smt. Mona Jain v. Sanjeev Jain, 1995(2) RRR 5 : 1995(1) HLR 326; Niranjan Kumar v. Veena Rani, 1995(2) RRR 354 : 1995(1) RRR 488 : 1995(1) HLR 123; and Ved Parkash v. Manju, 1998(3) RCR(Civil) 44 : 1998(3) RCR(Civil) 44.
(3.) IN view of above, instant petition is allowed. The divorce petition No. 205 of 2005, filed by the parties and pending before the learned District Judge, Amritsar, shall be deemed to have been disposed of. The Registry is directed to draw a decree of divorce as per the observation made in the preceding para.;