-1- IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO.1554 OF 2007 PETITION NO.1554 OF 2007 PETITION NO.1554 OF 2007 Mrs.Anagha w/o Kiran Kamble ...Petitioner I And Kiran Pandurang Kamble ...Petitioner II Mr.A.V.Chatuphale for the Petitioner I CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: A.S.OKA,J. A.S.OKA,J. A.S.OKA,J. DATE DATE DATE : JUNE 6, 2007. : JUNE 6, 2007. : JUNE 6, 2007. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. This is a Petition jointly filed by the Petitioners in a Petition for dissolution of marriage filed by the Petitioners under section 28 of the Special Marriage Act,1954. The Petitioner No.1 is the wife and the Petitioner no.2 is the husband. 2. According to the case of the Petitioners, their marriage was solemnised on 7th March 2001 under the provisions of Special Marriage Act,1954 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act of 1954). According to the Petitioners, they have been continuously residing separately from 24th April 2005. The Petition was presented in February 2007. A prayer was made by the Petitioners for dispensing with the condition of posting the marriage petition after six months from the date of presentation. 3. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that this court in exercise of power under Article 227 of -2- Constitution of India can always direct the learned District Judge to relax the period of six months as per the statutory requirement so that the parties need not wait till August 2007 for obtaining a decree for divorce by mutual consent. 4. The Petition filed by the Petitioners is for obtaining divorce by mutual consent by invoking power under section 28 of the said Act of 1954. On plain reading of the provisions of sub-section 2 of section 28 of the said Act of 1954, it is obvious that the decree of divorce under section 28 of the said Act of 1954 can be passed only after the lapse of a period of six months from the date of institution of the petition. There is no discretion vested in the District Court for dispensing with the said requirement of law. Therefore, the District Court could not have acceded to the prayers made by the Petitioners. 5. It appears that the Petition is lodged by the Petitioners on 16th February 2007. Therefore, the learned Additional District Judge was right in passing a direction that the petition should be put up after six months. 6. There are no extraordinary features in this case warranting the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India. Writ petition is rejected. However, it is made clear that the concerned court will dispose of the petition as expeditiously as possible. -3- JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE