IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.2481 of 2008 Date of decision: May 21, 2008. Dheeraj Grover & Anr. ...Petitioner(s) v. Additional District Judge ...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 Suresh Goel, Advocate for petitioner No.1. Shri IPS Kohli, Advocate for petitioner No.2. ORDER Surya Kant, J. - (Oral): This Revision Petition has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 4.3.2008 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Barnala whereby a petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short the Act), moved by the parties for granting decree of divorce by mutual consent, has been dismissed. As per the averments made in the petition, the parties were married on 30.8.2007. It is stated that they lived together only for three months and thereafter have parted ways; there is no child out of the wedlock. Alleging, inter-alia, that due to temperamental differences, they are unable to carry on the relationship and their marriage has become irretrievably broken, they jointly filed the present petition under Section 13- B of the Act. Learned Additional District Judge, having found that the marriage is not yet one years old, thus, the petition under Section 13-B of the Act is not maintainable in view of the statutory rider imposed under Section 13(1) read with Section 14(1) of the Act, has dismissed the petition. Aggrieved, the petitioners have preferred this revision petition. It is stated by their learned counsel that both of them are present in court. After hearing Learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that one of the appropriate course for the learned trial court could have been to adjourned the petition sine-die or to a date beyond 30.8.2008 and then to find out as to whether the appellants have still not been able to pull on together and are living separately at least for a period of one year, as contemplated by sub-section (1) of Section 13-B of the Act. It is stated at the Bar that even after passing of the impugned order dated 14.3.2008, there is no possibility of any reconciliation and the parties are living separately. In these peculiar circumstances, I set aside the impugned order and remit the case to the learned trial court to decide the same afresh in accordance with law. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Additional District Judge, Barnala on 01.09.2008. Disposed of. May 21, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge