MAMTA SABHARWAL Vs. RAVINDER KUMAR SABHARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this order, we are deciding an application filed jointly by the appellant and the respondent under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for conversion of a petition filed under Sec. 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, 'the Act') by the respondent in the Court of District Judge, Ludhiana, into a petition under Sec. 13-B of the Act.

(2.) In the application for amendment, it has been stated that the appellant and the respondent are temperamentally different and they have mutually agreed to dissolve the marriage. Their prayer is that the petition filed by the respondent, under Sec. 9 of the Act may be allowed to be converted into a petition under Sec. 13-B of the Act. This application is supported by a joint affidavit of the appellant and the respondent.

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondent urged that the Court may kindly accept the application filed by the parties for amendment of the petition moved by the respondent-husband under Sec. 9 of the Act and pass a decree of dissolution of marriage at this very stage. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant conceded that the amendment may be allowed but submitted that a decree of dissolution of the marriage cannot be passed at this stage in view of the provisions contained in Sec. 13-B(2) of the Act. Learned counsel invited our attention to a decision of the Supreme Court in Sureshta Devi Vs. Om Parkash, AIR 1992 Supreme Court 1904 : [1991(1) All India Hindu Law Reporter 467 (SC)] and argued that a petition filed for divorce by mutual consent has to be dealt with in accordance with Sec. 13-B(2) and merely because the parties convert a proceeding pending for divorce or for restitution of conjugal rights into a proceeding for divorce by mutual consent, the rigour of six months cannot be diluted. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent, on the other hand, argued that once the Court accepts the amendment application, the petition filed by the respondent-husband under Sec. 9 of the Act would be deemed to have been converted into a petition for divorce by mutual consent under Sec. 13-B with effect from the date of the institution of the petition under Sec. 9 and the period of six months would be deemed to have expired on the date of the filing of the application for amendment. He relied on the decisions of this Court in Smt. Krishna Khetarpal Vs. Satish Lal, AIR 1987 Punjab and Haryana 191 [1987(1) All India Hindu Law Reporter 36 (Pb. & Hry.)]; Lalit Kumar Vs. Sushma Sharma, 1995(1) PLR 255 and Niranjan Kumar Vs. Veena Rani, 1995(2) PLR 200: [1995(1) All India Hindu Law Reporter 123 (Pb. & Hry.)].