HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BkLASPUR Coram: Hon’ ble Shri Dhirendra Mishra, & Hon’ ble Shri R.N. Chandrakar, JJ First Appeal (M) No. 16 of 2007 Appellant Manoj Kedia, son of Shri Keshav (Plaintiff) Prasad Kedia, aged about 35 years, resident of C/o. Shri B.L. Thakur, Near Plot No. 222 of Near Vijaya .Talkies, behind Annapurna Nursing Home, Parivahan Nagar, Korba (CG).- Vs. Respondent Smt. Anupama Kedia alias Annu, (Defendant) wife of Shri Manoj Kedia, daughter of Shri Gopal Agarwal, resident of Near Nalanda Public ,School, Manoj Laundry Street (Shiv Mandir Road), Vinoba Nagar, Bilaspur, P.S. Tarbahar, Bilaspur. (First Appeal under Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955) Present: Mr. K. Sharma, counsel for the appellant. Ms. Sharmila Singhai, counsel for the respondent. J U D G M E N T (Delivered on this 5‘“ day of May, 201 0) Per Dhirendra Mishra .l‘. This is husband's appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 against the judgment and decree dated 15-2—2007 passed by the Family Court, Bilaspur, in Civil Suit No. 2-A/2007, whereby the petitioner’s application under Section 10 read with Section 1 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, “the Act, 1955") for dissolution of antheir marriage dated 9-2-2000 by decree of divorce has been rejected. 3 ‘2) Appellant/husband filed the application for divorce alleging various acts af cruelty committed by the respondent/wife as also on the ground that the respondent/wife has deserted him without any valid reason on 5‘“. October, 20m and since then she is residing separateiy with her brother and an offence under Section 498(A) of the IPC has been registered against the appellant/husband on the complaint of the respondent/wife. The appeliant/husband has been acquitted in criminal case No. 1876/2002 vide judgment dated 1-7-2004 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur. 3) The respondent/wife denied the allegations in the divorce petition and made counter allegations against her husband/appellant. 4) On the basis of averments made by respective parties, issues were framed and after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the Family Court dismissed the application for divorce with a finding that the applicant has failed to prove the factum-of cruelty, and therefore, he is not entitled for either decree of judicial separation or decree of divorce and is also not entitled for custody of the daughter. 5) During pendency of this appeal, the appellant/husband and the respondent/wife have jointly filed an application under Section 13-B of the Act, 1955 for grant of decree of divorce by mutual consent wherein it has been pleaded that during pendency of this appeal the efforts of reconciliation made by the courts and the parties failed and they could not reconcile. They are residing separately since 5-1 0-2001 and there is no chance of reconciliation or their living together and they have never Wane.” h __ resumed cohabitation after 5-10-2001. in view of this, they have mutually agreed that their marriage may be dissoived by decree of divorce by mutual consent. They have also averred that they hereby withdraw all the allegations against each other. The appellant/husband has already returned almost all the articles belonging to the respondent/wife and she has also been paid a huge sum of Rs.6 lacs to her satisfaction towards permanent alimony as contemplated under Section 25 of the Act, 1955. 6) In compliance of the order dated 30-42010 passed by this Court, Additional Registrar (Judicial) has recorded the statements on oath of the appellant/husband - Manoj Kedia and respondent/wife — Smt. Anupama Kedia alias Annu on 30-4-2010 and in their deposition aiso they have reiterated the version of their application for divorce by mutual consent under Section 1 3-B of the Act, 1955. 7) Learned counsel for the parties submit that the application under Section 13-B of the Act, 1955 can be tiled in the appeal proceedings directed against the decision of the Family Court rejecting the application for divorce, in appropriate cases where the court is of the opinion that the decree of divorce should be passed immediately in the interest of justice and in the interest of parties to the application. The condition under Section 13-B (2) of the Act, 1955 would not be an impediment as Section 13-B (2) of the Act is directory and’hot mandatgry. Reliance is piaced en K. Omprakash vs. K. Nalini‘, i ‘ AIR 1986 Andhra Pradesh 167 and Smt. Neetaa. .. .. Smt. Krishna Khetrapal vs. Satish Lal’ and Dineshkumar Shukla 8) From the contents of the application under Section 13-8 of the Act, 1955 and the statements on oath of the appellant/husband and respondent/wife, we are satisfied that the appellant and the respondent have jointly moved this application for grant of divorce on their own and free will as they could not lead peaceful marital life since 5‘“ October, 2001 and they were engaged in unfortunate litigations with each’other in this period. We are also satisfied that there is no cohabitation between the spouses since 5*“ October, 2001 and every attempt of reconciliation by the Court has failed and there is no possibility of re-union. The only question which ariSes for adjudication istwhether the decree of divorce under Section 13-B of the Act,1955 can be‘ granted without waiting for statutory period of limitation as prescribed under instantaneously Section 13-B(2) of the Act, 1955. 9) Section 13—8 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is reproduced as unden of to the marriage prpns by o _a this decree . Act ai a consent—(1) petition o divorce for dissolu ma Subgect presented solemnized be a marriage together, whether such marriage was he Marria e Laws (Amendment) Act 1976 on the section presentation (y ate, and of if not the the later petition petition than is eighteen referred not Withdrawn months to in in after sub- the the said K 3 2 AIR 2005 1987 (4) MPHT Punjab 168 and Haxyana 191 ion vrsro u meantime, the gourt shall, on bejng satisfredhafter heanng the parties and after making such mqulry as It thinks fit, that a mama e has_ been solemmzed and that the averments m _e petition are true, pass a_ dissotved decree With of divorce effect from declaring the ate the of marriage the decree." to be 10) In the matter of K. Omprakash (supra), Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court, while dealing with the aforesaid aspect, observed as under: “S.13-B (2) should be readas directory only. S. 13-B (2), no doubt cautions the Courts of its duty to fight the last ditch battle to save the marriage; but when the Court is fully satisfied, on the basis of the proved facts, that in the interests of justice of the society and the individuals marriage tie should be put asunder immediately. S. 13-B(2) does not impose, any fetter on the powers of the Court to grant instant decree of divorce. At any rate the time-table fixed by S.13-B (2) does not apply to an appellate Court.” 11) In the matter of Smt. Krishna Khetrapal (supra), Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court while interpreting sub section (2) of Section 13-B of the Act, 1955, held that the matrimonial court can dissolve a marriage by a decree of divorce between two Hindus on the basis of compromise entered into between‘the parties during the pendency of the divorce petition without strictly following the procedure prescribed by Section 13-B(2) of the Act, 1955, but on satisfying itself of not only the requirements of Section 23(1)(c) but also of the specifically applicable Section 23(1)(bb) of the Act. ;:_”4 ”4g ,. 12) Similar view has again been taken by Madhya Pradesh “High Court in the matter of Dineshkumar Shukla (supra) wherein it has been held as under; “12. In view of the foregoing discussion, in the considered opinion of this Court, the law laid down in Manju Kohii’s case does not represent the correct law specially in view of the fact that in a subsequent decision, the Supreme Court itself has doubted the correctness of the view taken in the earlier decision reported in AIR 1992 SC 1904. We, therefore, overrule the decision given in Manju Kohli's case (supra) and approve the view taken in Padmanmi vs. Hemant Singh, reported in ii (1994) DMC 548; Ravi vs.Madhu Arora, 1995(1) MPWN 8N2; Mahesh Kumar vs. Sunita, 1998(2) MPWN SN 56; Smt. Ratna Kanthale vs. Rajendra Kanthale,l (2000) DMC 490; Deepak vs. Rani, 2000(2) MPLJ SN 26, Smt, Preetha Nair vs. Gopkumar, ll (2001) DMC 170, Deepak Kulkar’ni,’ vs. Tanuja, 2003(2) JLJ 121 and hold that in a petition for divorce under Section 13(1) pending , for more than six months and thereafter, during pendency of the petition, if a joint application is made for divorce on mutual consent, the Court, subject to fulfillment of mandatory provisions of Section 13-B(1), the Court in a given case need not wait for six months and can pass a decree after holding the enquiry as indicated hereinabove without waiting for the expiry of six months from the date of presentation." 13) We have already observed in the foregoing paragraphs that the marriage between the parties had broken down irretrievably and there is no reasonable chance for re-union of the parties. They have been living apart for the last nine years. Any prolongation of the legal status of the marriage is not likely to bring out reconciliation. It can only help to accentuate their unhappiness by further fomenting their mutual jealousies. They are litigating against each other on the basis of allegations and counter allegations for over nine years. In these circumstances, we are clearly of the opnion that the present application ‘made by the parties for dissolution of marriage under Section 13—B of the Act, 1955 is not the result of any collusion between the parties nor was it the result of any passing phase of mental agony or temporary feeling of unhappiness. We have no doubt that decree of divorce under Section 13-B of the Act, 1955 can be passed without further waiting for statutory period of six months as per Section 13-B(2) of the Act, 1955. 14) Accordingly, the application under Section 13-B (2) of the Act, 1955 is allowed and the marriage between the appeiiant/husband and the respondent/wife solemnized on 9-2-2000 is hereby dissolved through a decree of divorce by mutual consent. 15) The instant appeal is accordingly disposed of. 16) Decree be drawn up accordingly. 17) No order as to costs. Raju \i Sd/- Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra R.N. Chandrakar Judge Judge