P. B. PRASAD Vs. DEEPTHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner and the first respondent are the husband and wife. Their marriage was solemnised on 2-9-1995 according to Hindu rites. They have no children. The relationship between the husband and wife was not cordial. Various disputes cropped up between them, and they are living separately for three years. Alleging cruelty against the husband, father of the first respondent filed a complaint before the police, which led to filing of C. C. No. 405 of 1998 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Kochi under S.498A of the IPC and the same is pending consideration. Complaint was filed by the first respondent's father on 28-1-1998. In the said case, not only the petitioner, but also his brother and other relations are parties. Anticipating arrest they approached this court and filed Crl. M. C. No. 645 of 1998. This court granted anticipatory bail. While the pendency of the matter, this court also noted that petitioner paid an amount of Rs. 1 lakh to the complainant.

(2.) A petition for divorce was also preferred by the first respondent before the Family Court, Ernakulam as O. P. No. 216 of 1998 under S.13(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act, and the same is pending consideration before the Family Court. Petitioner in the meantime filed I. A. No. 1804 of 1998 in O. P. No. 216 of 1998 for staying all further proceedings before the Family Court during the pendency of the Criminal Case, C. C. No. 405 of 1998 pending before Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Kochi. That petition was however dismissed by the Family Court by order dated 30-11-1998. Aggrieved by the same petitioner has filed this writ petition.

(3.) I heard counsel for the petitioner, Sri. T. Ravikumar, senior counsel for the first respondent, Sri. T. P. Kelu Nambiar, and Sri. P. K. Suresh Kumar. During the course of arguments, I ascertained from them whether there is any possibility of revival of marriage. Counsel after getting instructions submitted that there is no possibility of revival of marriage, and both of them agreed for a divorce. It is also pointed out they have no children out of the wedlock. Senior counsel appearing for the first respondent brought to my knowledge a decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in In Re Grandhi Venkata Chitti Abbai, AIR 1999 A.P., 91, and submitted that since there is no possibility of revival of marriage, and the parties have already agreed for a divorce, the period of six months under S.13B of the Hindu Marriage Act be waived in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. Parties on either side agreed to the said course as well. They also agreed that they are not interested in prosecuting C. C. No. 405 of 1998 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate II, Kochi. In the meantime they also filed a petition under S.13B of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Family Court, Ernakulam as O. P. (Divorce) No. 9 of 1999, a copy of which is produced as Ext. P4. It is stated in the said petition that they started living separately from 7-12-1997 onwards, and that they have no intention to revive the marriage. It is also stated that there is no possibility for reconciliation also.