IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.905 of 2008 Date of decision: May 05, 2008. Deepak ...Petitioner(s) v. Mono & Prachi ...Respondent(s) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest. Present: Shri Sanjay Mittal, Advocate for the petitioner. ORDER Surya Kant, J. - (Oral): This Revision Petition is directed against the order dated October 03, 2007 passed by the learned District Judge, Narnaul whereby a petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act (for short the Act) has been dismissed. The Revision Petition has been preferred by the husband who got married to the respondent on 26.01.2000. A female child was born out of the wedlock, who is presently in the custody of the respondent. At one point of time, the couple appears to have decided to part ways, therefore, they presented a petition under Section 13-B of the Act and made their respective statements in support thereof on October 18, 2006. The said petition was thereafter adjourned to April 23, 2007, i.e., for a date after expiry of the statutory waiting period of six months prescribed under sub-section (2) of Section 13-B of the Act. On April 23, 2007, the respondent – wife moved an application for dismissal of the petition. She asserted that her husband, namely, the petitioner brought her to the court on October 18, 2006 by misrepresentation on the pretext that she shall get a job after divorce, therefore, she was misled to make a wrong statement. Her signatures were also allegedly obtained by the petitioner on some blank papers through fraudulent means. Besides this, the respondent also made some other serious allegations against the petitioner. That being the state of affairs, it was contended on behalf of the petitioner that since the respondent – wife had already consented for divorce by mutual consent on October 18, 2006, any subsequent somersault by her was of no consequence as she could not be permitted to withdraw her consent. The aforesaid contention, however, did not find favour with the learned District Judge, who has dismissed the petition vide the impugned order. Aggrieved, the petitioner – husband has preferred this Revision Petition. I have heard Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and perused the impugned order. Sub-section (2) of Section 13-B of the Act provides that on the motion of both the parties made not earlier than six months after the date of presentation of a joint petition by them for divorce by mutual consent under sub-section (1), if the petition is not withdrawn in the meantime, the Court shall, on being satisfied after hearing the parties and after making inquiries as it thinks fit, pass a decree of divorce declaring the marriage to be dissolved. There can indeed be no quarrel that the minimum waiting period of six months contemplated by sub-section (2) is mandatory in nature and cannot be waived off. [Ref: Charanjit Singh Mann v. Neelam Mann, AIR 2006 P&H 201(DB)]. The apparent object behind providing the minimum waiting period is to allow time to the spouses to reconsider their decision and make up their mind finally. It also enables the court to satisfy itself that the consent is free from any undue or extraneous influence and is not tainted with any collusion between the parties. It is for this reason that not only a party to the petition is permitted to withdraw the petition in the meantime, the court is also required to satisfy itself that the parties deserve to be granted a decree of divorce by mutual consent. In other words, mere presentation of a petition and making of motion under sub-section (1) of Section 13-B of the Act by the parties does not bind them unless the mandatory conditions laid down in sub-section (2) thereof are also complied with. In the present case, it could not be disputed that not only the respondent – wife withdrew her consent on the date of expiry of the waiting period of six months, she rather sought dismissal of the petition by making allegations of serious nature against the petitioner – husband. Thus, the mandatory conditions as laid down in sub-section (2) of section 13-B of the Act having not been complied with, no case to grant decree of divorce by 'mutual consent' is made out. No error of jurisdiction, therefore, has been committed by the learned District Judge while dismissing the petition. No ground to interfere with the impugned order is made out. Dismissed. May 05, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge