N VIJAYA RAGHAVAN Vs. K SHARADA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant had filed a petition under Section 13 (1) (i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, seeking for a decree of divorce by dissolving his marriage with the respondent. The trial Court i. e. , the Family Court, after considering the matter in detail, held that the petitioner, before it, failed to prove that the respondent, after solemnization of the marriage, treated him with cruely and it further observed that in view of the said findings, petitioner is not entitled for the relief claimed and dismissed the petition with this finding vide judgment and Order dated 7-10-1999. Hence, the husband-petitioner filed an appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984.

(2.) DURING the pendency of the appeal, it appears, on some mistaken advise, a joint petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act was filed as a miscellaneous application in Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 5073/1999. This appeal was filed on 8-3-2000. This application I. A. IV along with the appeal has been listed before us.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that this Court may pass a decree for divorce under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act and dispose of the appeal finally. The learned counsel contended that the purpose of this Section 13-B which has been introduced is that, if the marriage has already broken and the parties cannot live together, the parties may be allowed to separate and be free from the bonds of marriage at the earliest possible and made reference to a decision of this Court in the case of Roopa Reddy v. Prabhakara Reddy reported in ILR 1993 Kant 2212. No doubt, the Division Bench of this Court opined that there is no condition that six months period should be strictly complied with. Here, that is not the question. Firstly, the question is whether this petition or application described as a joint petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act may be filed as a miscellaneous application-Section 13-B reads as under:-