http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 7  

PETITIONER: SMT.  SURESHTA DEVI

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: OM PRAKASH

DATE OF JUDGMENT07/02/1991

BENCH: SHETTY, K.J. (J) BENCH: SHETTY, K.J. (J) AGRAWAL, S.C. (J)

CITATION:  1992 AIR 1904            1991 SCR  (1) 274  1991 SCC  (2)  25        JT 1991 (1)   321  1991 SCALE  (1)156

ACT:      Hindu   Marriage   Act,  1955:   Section    13-B    and 23(l)(bb)-Divorce by mutual consent-Filing  of  a   petition under   section  13-B(1)  does  not by itself  snap  marital ties-Parties are  required  to  file  a  joint  motion under Section 13-B(2)-Joint Motion before the Court for hearing of the   petition  should  be ’of  both   the   parties  Mutual consent   should   continue   till  passing   of    decree-A spouse    can    unilaterally    withdraw    his     consent before  passing  of  the  divorce   decree-Requirements   of Section   13-B explained-Expression ’living  separately’ and ’have  not  been  able  to  live together’-Scope and meaning of.      Special Marriage Act, 1954: Section 28.

HEADNOTE:      The    appellant-wife   and   the    respondent-husband filed    a   petition under  section  13-B  of   the   Hindu Marriage  Act,  1955  for  divorce   by mutual  consent   in the    District    Court   and   their    statements    were recorded.   Subsequently,   the    appellant    filed     an application   in  the  Court for dismissal of  the  petition stating  that  she  was not willing to be a   party  to  the petition   and  that  her  statement  was   obtained   under threat   and  pressure  of husband.   The   District   Judge dismissed   the  petition  but  on appeal  the  High   Court reversed  the  order  of  the  District  Judge  and  granted a  decree  of  divorce by holding that the  consent   to   a petition   for  divorce  by  mutual   consent   cannot    be unilaterally   withdrawn  and  such  a withdrawal would  not take   away   the  jurisdiction  of  the   Court,   if   the consent  was   otherwise   free;  and   since   the   wife’s consent    was   without  any   force,   fraud   or    undue influence   she  was  bound  by  the   consent.  Hence  this appeal by the wife.      Allowing the appeal and setting  aside  the  decree  of divorce,  this Court,      HELD:  1.  An analysis  of  Section   13-B   makes   it apparent  that  the filing of the petition under section 13- B(l)  with  mutual  consent  does  not authorise  the  Court to   make   a   decree  for  divorce.   The   parties    are

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 7  

required  to make a joint  motion  under   sub-section   (2) which   should  not be  earlier than six months  after   the date  of  presentation  of  the  petition                                                        275 and not later than 18  months  after  the  said  date.  This motion  enables the court to proceed with the case in  order to   satisfy   itself   about   the   genuineness   of   the averments   in   the  petition  and  also   to   find    out whether  the consent  was  not  obtained  by  force,   fraud or  undue  influence.  The  Court  may  make  such   inquiry as it    thinks fit including the hearing or examination  of the  parties   for   the   purpose   of   satisfying  itself whether  the  averments  in the petition are  true.  If  the Court   is  satisfied  that the consent  of   the    parties was   not  obtained  by  force,  fraud  or undue   influence and  they  have   mutually   agreed   that   the    marriage should  be  dissolved,  it must pass a  decree  of  divorce. [280D, 279C-D]      2.  The  period  of  waiting  from  6  to   18   months referred   to   in section 13-B(2) is intended to give  time and opportunity to  the  parties  to  reflect on their  move and  seek  advice  from  relations  and  friends.   In  this transitional  period  one of the parties may have  a  second thought and change the mind not to proceed with the petition i.e.  it may not be a party to the joint motion  under  sub- section  (2).  This sub-section requires the court  to  hear the  Parties which means both the parties, But  the  section does not provide that if there is a change of mind it should not  be by one Party alone, but by both.  Therefore, if  one of the parties at that stage withdraws its consent the Court cannot  pass a decree of divorce by mutual consent.  If  the Court  is  held to have the power to make  a  decree  solely based  on the initial petition it negates  the  whole   idea of   mutuality  and  consent  for  divorce.  Mutua   consent to  the divorce is a sine qua  non  for  passing  a   decree for  divorce  under  section  13-B.  Mutual  consent  should continue   till  the   divorce decree is Passed. it   is   a positive  requirement  for  the  Court  to Pass a decree of divorce. [280D, 281A.B]      K.I.   Mohanan  v.  Jeejabai,  A.I.R.  1988  Ker.   28; Harcharan   Kaur v.  Nachhattar  Singh,  A.I.R.  1988  P   & H.   27   and  Santosh  Kumari   v. Virendra  Kumar,  A.I.R. 1986 Raj. 128; approved.      Jayashree  Ramesh    Londhe    v.    Ramesh     Bhikaji Londhe,     A.I.R. 1984  Bom.  302;  Smt.   Chander    Kanta v.  Hans  Kumar  and  Anr.,   A.I.R. 1989  De.  4  73;   and Meena  Dutta  v.  Anirudh  Dutta,  1984  11  DMC  388  (MP); overruled.      Halsbury  Laws  of  England,  4th  Edn.  Vol.  13  para 645;    Rayden on Divorce, 12 Edn- Vol 1 p. 291 and  Beales v.  Beales,  1972  2  All  E.R. 667; referred to.      3.  Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act is  in  para materia  with                                                        276 Section 28 of the Special  Marriage Act, 1954.   Sub-Section (1)  of section 13-B requires that the petition for  divorce by mutual consent must be presented to the Court jointly  by both  the  parties.  There are three other  requirements  in sub-section (1).  Firstly, it is necessary that  immediately preceding the presentation of the petition the parties  must have  been  living separately for a period of  one  year  or more.   The  expression  ’living  separately’  connotes  not living  like husband and wife.  It has no reference  to  the place  of living.  The parties may live under the same  roof by force of circumstances, and yet they may not be living as

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 7  

husband  and wife.  The parties may be living  in  different houses  and yet they could live as husband and  wife.   What seems to be necessary is that they have no desire to perform marital obligations and with that mental attitude they  have been living separately for a period of one year  immediately preceding  the  presentation of the  petition.   The  second requirement  is  that  they  ’have not  been  able  to  live together’  which  indicates  the  concept  of  broken   down marriage   and  it  would  not  be  possible  to   reconcile themselves.   The  third  requirement  is  that  they   have mutually  agreed  that the marriage   should  be  dissolved. [278E-H, 279A-B]

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 633  of 1991.      From  the  Judgment  and Order dated  1.8.1989  of  the Himachal  Pradesh  High Court in F.A.0. (H.M.A.) No.  28  of 1989.      Dhruv  Mehta,  Aman  Vachher and  S.K.  Mehta  for  the Appellant.      Subhagmal Jain and H.K. Puri for the Respondent.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY, J. Special Leave granted.      This  appeal  from a decision of the  Himachal  Pradesh High Court concerns the validity of a decree of  dissolution of  marriage  by  mutual  consent,  and  is  said,  probably rightly, to raise an important issue.  The issue is  whether a  party to a petition for divorce by mutual  consent  under Section  13B  of the Hindu Marriage Act,  1955  (’Act’)  can unilaterally  withdraw  the consent or whether  the  consent once given is irrevocable.      The appellant is the wife of the respondent.  They were married on 21 November 1968.  They lived together for  about six to seven                                                        277 months.   Thereafter,   it  is  said  that  the   wife   did not   stay   with   the   husband  except  from  9  December 1984    to   7   January   1985.   That   was  pursuant   to an   order   of  the  Court,  but  it   seems   that    they did    not  live  like  husband   and   wife   during   that period   also.  On  8  January  1985, both  of   them   came to    Hamirpur.   The   wife   was   accompanied   by    her counsel,  Shri   Madan   Rattan.   After   about   an   hour discussion,   they  moved  a  petition  under  Section  13-B for   divorce   by   mutual   consent   in   the    District Court    at    Hamirpur.   On   9    January    1985,    the Court recorded statements of the parties and left the matter there.      On   15th   January   1985,   the   wife    filed    an application   in  the  Court, inter alia, stating  that  her statement  dated 9 January 1985 was obtained under  pressure and    threat   of   the   husband   and   she    was    not even  allowed to  see  or  meet  her  relations  to  consult them  before  filing  the petition  for  divorce.  Nor  they were   permitted   to  accompany  her  to   the  Court.  She said   that   she would  not  be  party  to   the   petition and  prayed for  its  dismissal.  The  District  Judge  made certain    orders    which   were taken   up    in    appeal before    the    High    Court   and    the    High    Court remanded   the   matter   to   the   District   Judge    for fresh     disposal.    Ultimately,   the   District    Judge dismissed   the  petition  for  divorce.  But   upon  appeal

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 7  

the   High   Court   has   reversed   the   order   of   the District   Judge  and granted  a  decree   for   dissolution of  the   marriage   by   mutual   consent. The  High  Court has   observed  that  the  spouse  who  has  given   consent to   a   petition   for   divorce    cannot     unilaterally withdraw    the   consent   and   such  withdrawal  however, would  not  take  away  the jurisdiction  of  the  Court  to dissolve the marriage by mutual consent, if the consent  was otherwise free.  The High Court also recorded a finding that the wife gave her consent to the petition without any force, fraud or undue influence and therefore she was bound by that consent.       Section 13-B  was  not  there  in  the  original  Act. It  was  introduced  by the Amending Act 68 of 1976. Section 13-B provides:           13-B(l)  Subject to the  provisions  of  the   Act           a  petition  for dissolution  of  marriage  by   a           decree   of   divorce  may  be  presented  to  the           district   court   by  both  the  parties   to   a           marriage   together,   whether   such     marriage           was     solemnized    before    or   after     the           commencement     of     the     Marriage      Laws           (Amendment)   Act,  1976,  on  the   ground   that           they  have  been   living separately for a  period           of   one   year  or  more,  that  they   have  not           been   able  to  live  together  and   that   they           have  mutually agreed that the marriage should  be           dissolved.                                                        278           (2)   On   the  motion  of   both   the    parties           made   not   earlier than  six  months  after  the           date   of   the  presentation  of    the  petition           referred   to   in   sub-section   (1)   and   not           later    than  eighteen months  after   the   said           date,   if  the  petition  is  not withdrawn    in           the     meantime,    the    Court    shall,     on           being  satisfied,   after  hearing   the   parties           and   after   making   such inquiry as  it  thinks           fit,  that  a  marriage  has  been  solemnized and           that   the   averments   in   the   petition   are           true,    pass   a decree  of   divorce   declaring           the    marriage   to   be   dissolved with  effect           from the date of the decree."           It is also necessary to read Section 23(l)(bb):           23(1)   In  any  proceeding  under   this    Act,           whether defended or not, if the Court is satisfied           that-           (bb)   When   a  divorce  is  sought    on    the           ground    of    mutual  consent,   such    consent           has   not   been   obtained   by   force, fraud or           undue influence, and ....."      Section  13-B  is  in  pari  materia  with  Section  28 of    the   Special Marriage  Act,  1954.  Sub-section   (1) of   Section  13-B   requires   that   the    petition   for divorce  by  mutual  consent  must  be  presented  to    the Court    jointly by  both  the  parties.   Similarly,   sub- section   (2)   providing  for  the    motion   before   the Court   for   hearing  of  the  petition  should   also   be by   both the parties.      There  are  three  other  requirements  in  sub-section      (1).  There   are:      (i)  They have been living separately for a  period  of      one year.      (ii) They have not been able to live together, and      (iii) They have mutually agreed that marriage should be

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 7  

    dissolved.      The ’living separately’ for a period of one year should be  immediately preceding the presentation of the  petition. It is necessary that immediately preceding the  presentation of  petition, the parties must have been living  separately. The expression ’living separately’, connotes to our mind not living  like husband and wife.  It has no reference  to  the place  of living.  The parties may live under the same  roof by force of circumstances, and yet they may not be living as                                                        279 husband  and  wife.   The   parties   may   be   living   in different   houses   and  yet  they could live  as   husband and   wife.  What  seems  to  be  necessary  is   that  they have   no   desire   to    perform    marital    obligations and    with    that  attitude   they   have   been    living separately   for  a   period   of   one    year  immediately preceding  the  presentation  of the  petition.  The  second requirement  that  they  ’have  not  been  able   to    live together’   seems   to  indicate  the  concept   of   broken down    marriage   and   it   would   not   be possible   to reconcile  themselves.  The  third   requirement   is   that they  have  mutually  agreed that  the  marriage  should  be dissolved.      Under   sub-section  (2)  the  parties   are   required to   make   a  joint motion not earlier  than   six   months after   the   date  of  presentation  of  the  petition  and not  later  than  18  months  after  the  said  date.   This motion   enables  the  Court  to  proceed  with   the   case in  order  to  satisfy  itself    about the genuineness   of the   averments  in  the  petition  and  also  to  find  out whether   the   consent  was  not   obtained    by    force, fraud    or    undue  influence. The  Court  may  make  such inquiry  as  it  thinks   fit   including  the  hearing   or examination   of   the   parties   for   the   purpose    of satisfying itself whether  the  averments  in  the  petition are   true.  If  the  Court  is  satisfied that the  consent of  parties  was  not  obtained  by  force,  fraud or  undue influence    and    they   have   mutually    agreed    that the   marriage should be dissolved, it must pass a decree of divorce.      The   question   with  which  we   are   concerned   is whether   it   is   open  to one of the parties at any  time till  the  decree  of  divorce  is  passed  to withdraw  the consent   given   to  the  petition.  The   need    for    a detailed study  on  the  question  has  arisen  because   of the   fact   that   the   High Courts  do  not  speak   with one   voice  on  this  aspect.   The   Bombay    High  Court in    Jayashree    Ramesh   Londhe   v.    Ramesh    Bhikaji Londhe,     AIR 1984  Bom.  302,  has  expressed  the   view that  the  crucial  time   for   the  consent  for   divorce under   Section  13-B  was  the  time  when  the    petition was  filed.  If the  consent  was   voluntarily   given   it would   not  be  possible for  any  party  to  nullify   the petition   by   withdrawing  the  consent.  The  court   has drawn   support  to  this  conclusion  from  the   principle underlying  Order  XXIII  Rule  1  of  the  Code  of   Civil Procedure  which   provides that if a suit is filed  jointly by one or more  plaintiffs,  such  a  suit  or  a  part   of a  claim  cannot  be   abandoned   or   withdrawn   by   one of    the  plaintiffs  or  one  of  the   parties   to   the suit.   The  High  Court  of  Delhi adopted   similar   line of    reasoning    in   Smt. Chander     Kanta    v.    Hans Kumar   and   Anr.,   AIR   1989   Delhi    73    and    the Madhya   Pradesh   High Court in  Meena  Dutta  v.   Anirudh Dutta,  [1984] 11  DMC  388  also  took  a similar view

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 7  

                                                      280      But  the Kerala High Court in K.L Mohanan v.  Jeejabai, AIR 1988 Kerala 28 and the Punjab and Haryana High Court  in Harcharan  Kaur  v. Nachhattar Singh,  AIR  1988  Punjab  & Haryana  27  and Rajasthan High Court in Santosh  Kumari  v. Virendra Kumar, AIR 1986 Rajasthan 128 have taken a contrary view.   It has been inter alia, held that it is open to  one of the spouses to withdraw the consent given to the petition at  any time before the Court passes a decree  for  divorce. The satisfaction of the Court after holding an inquiry about the genuineness of the consent, necessarily contemplates  an opportunity  for  either  of the  spouses  to  withdraw  the consent.  The Kerala High Court in particular has ruled  out the  application of analogy under Order XXIII Rule I of  the Code  of  Civil  Procedure since it  is  dissimilar  to  the situation arising under Section 13-B of the Act.      From  the analysis of the Section, it will be  apparent that the filing of the petition with mutual consent does not authorise the court to make a decree for divorce.  There  is a  period of waiting from 6 to 18 months.  This  interregnum was  obviously intended to give time and opportunity to  the parties  to  reflect  on their move  and  seek  advice  from relations  and friends.  In this transitional period one  of the  parties may have a second thought and change  the  mind not  to  proceed with the petition.  The spouse may  not  be party  to the joint motion under sub-section (2).  There  is nothing  in  the Section which prevents  such  course.   The Section  does not provide that if there is a change of  mind it should not be by one party alone, but by both.  The  High Courts of Bombay and Delhi have proceeded on the ground that the  crucial time for giving mutual consent for  divorce  is the  time of filing the petition and not the time when  they subsequently move for divorce decree.  This approach appears to  be  untenable.  At the time of the  petition  by  mutual consent,  the  parties are not unaware that  their  petition does  not by itself snap marital ties.  They know that  they have  to  take a further step to snap  marital  ties.   Sub- section  (2)  of Section 13-B is clear on  this  point.   It provides that "on the motion of both the parties .... if the petition  is not withdrawn in the meantime, the Court  shall pass  a  decree  of  divorce What  is  significant  in  this provision is that there should also be mutual  consent  when they  move  the  court with a request to pass  a  decree  of divorce.   Secondly, the Court shall be satisfied about  the bonafides  and the consent of the parties.  If there  is  no mutual consent at the time of the enquiry, the court gets no jurisdiction  to make a decree for divorce.  If the view  is otherwise,  the  Court  could make an  enquiry  and  pass  a divorce  decree even at the instance of one of  the  parties and against the consent of the other.  Such a decree  cannot be regarded as decree by mutual consent.                                                        281      Sub-section (2) requires the Court to hear the  parties which   means  both the parties. If one of the  parties   at that   stage  says  that  "I have  withdrawn  my   consent", or   "I   am  not  a  willing   party   to    the  divorce", the  Court  cannot  pass  a  decree  of  divorce  by  mutual consent.  If the Court is held to have the power to  make  a decree   solely based on the initial  petition,  it  negates the   whole  idea  of  mutualitly and consent for   divorce. Mutual  consent  to  the  divorce  is  a  sine  qua  non for passing   a   decree  for  divorce   under   Section   13-B. Mutual  consent should continue till the divorce decree   is passed.   It  is  a  positive requirement  for   the   court to   pass   a   decree  of   divorce.   "The   consent  must

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 7  

continue  to decree  nisi  and  must  be  valid   subsisting consent   when  the case is  heard".   [See   (i)   Halsbury Laws   of  England,  Fourth  Edition Vol. 13 para 645;  (ii) Rayden  on  Divorce,  12th  Ed.  Vol.  1  p.  291  and (iii) Beales v. Beales, [ 1972] 2 All E. R. 667 at 674].      In  our  view,  the   interpretation   given   to   the section   by   the   High Courts   of   Kerala,   Punjab   & Haryana   and   Rajasthan   in   the    aforesaid  decisions appears  to be  correct  and  we  affirm  that   view.   The decisions of  the  High  Courts  of   Bombay,   Delhi    and Madhya   Pradesh   (supra) cannot  be  said  to  have   laid down  the  law  correctly  and  they   stand overruled.      In the result, we  allow  the  appeal  and  set   aside the   decree   for  dissolution of the  marriage.   In   the circumstances  of  the  case,  however, we make on order  as to costs. T.N.A.                                       Appeal  allowed.                                                        282