( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3903 OF 2010 Ganesh Natha Taro PETITIONER VERSUS Sunita w/o Ganesh Taro RESPONDENT .... Mr. R.V. Gore, advocate for the petitioner. .... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 2nd July, 2010] PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This petition is being disposed of finally at the stage of admission and without issuing notice to the respondent, in view of peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case. 3. The petitioner and the respondent jointly filed an application for divorce by mutual consent under section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The respondent did not lateron appear before the Court after period of six (6) months which is the statutorily required period of waiting after processing of the petition. The petitioner, therefore, ( 2 ) requested the Court to issue notice to the respondent. The notice was issued but it was not served on the respondent as she was not at home and was reportedly had been to hospital, due to her illness. Needless to say, the respondent could nto appear before the Court of learned Civil Judge (S.D.) due to alleged disability. The learned Civil Judge rejected the request for issuance of fresh notice. Since the respondent had not appeared before the Court, there is no order passed after hearing both the sides and it is only the discretionary order passed by the learned Civil Judge whereby re-issuance of the notice is refused. The discretion so used by the Civil Judge appears to be improper and arbitrary. 4. In the result, the petition is allowed. The trial Court is directed to grant the application and re-issue the notice to the respondent (wife) in order to ascertain whether she continues to give her consent to the divorce petition and after due enquiry, the petition may be disposed of. No costs. [V.R. KINGAONKAR] JUDGE NPJ/wp3903-10