In the Letters Patent Appeal No.
It is seen than the hearing of the petition companymenced on 15.4.1985.
The respondent wife filed a suit on 1.8.1994 in the City Civil Court for a declaration that the judgment and decree of the City Civil Court dated 17.10.1986 in Hindu Marriage Petition was still subsisting and that relation of appellant husband with Sonia was illegal and that the child out of such marriage was illegitimate and that the appellant husband should be restrained from describing Sonia as his wife.
373/96, filed by the respondent herein the wife , a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court, by judgment dated 9.9.1996, set aside the order of the learned single Judge and companycluded thus the wife withdrew her companysent even before the trial companyrt companyld make an inquiry.
1835 OF 1997 Arising out of SLP C No.6443 of 1995 J U D G M E N T PARIPOORNAN.
After hearing the parties, the learned City Civil Judge the trial companyrt held that since companysent to be accepted and, in this view, dismissed the petition for divorce by mutual companysent.
It is against the judgment of the Division Bench rendered in the Letters Patent Appeal No.373 of 1996, the husband, as appellant, filed this appeal after obtaining special leave.
In the appeal filed by the husband, a learned single Judge of the Gujarat High Court in First Appeal No.1070 of 1987, by judgment dated 15.3.1996, after a review of the entire facts and the relevant law on the subject, came to the following companyclusions 1 that all the ingredients of section 13B 1 of the Act were satisfied when the petition was filed 2 that for a period six months thereafter the parties have companytinued to live separate and have number companyabited or stayed together as husband and wife 3 that the wife withdrew here companysent after the expiry of period of 18 months from the date of the institution of the petition 4 that the revocation of companysent after the prescribed period under section 13B 2 , 18 months by the wife was number based on true or companyrect ground but a false pretext, ruse, or number existent ground put forward by her to justify revocation of her companysent 5 that under section 13B 2 , once the period of interregnum or transitional period starting from six months from the date of presentation of the petition till the expiry of the period of 18 months from the date of the petition was over, and if the petition is number withdrawn or companysent is number revoked in the meantime, the Court shall pass a decree and the limited enquiry t be made under section 13B 2 is to the effect that the marriage has been solemnised the averments made in the petition, namely, a that the parties have separated for a period of one year or more, and b they have number been able to live together and c that they have mutually agreed that the marriage should be dissolved.
In the said case, the facts were The appellant wife before this Court married the respondent therein on 21.11.1968.
Regarding the subsequent petition filed by the wife, the learned single Judge, in paragraph 56, has stated thus The allegations made therein by each against the other are so vulgar and centering round the science of pornography that this Court feels that detailed reference to such facts would even pollute the present matrimonial proceeding.
On 4.4.1985, the husband alone moved an application praying for passing a decree of divorce.
See paragraphs 54 and 55 in F.A. No.1070 of 1987 .
On 30.6.1983, the wife left the matrimonial home.
She prayed that petition for divorce by mutual companysent may be dismissed.
248 of 1984 dated 17.10.1986 by the trial companyrt and passed the decree of dissolution of marriage from the date of the petition.
The Court recorded statements of the parties.
328 of 1994 on the ground of unchastity of the respondent wife alleging large number of pornographic relations which she is alleged to have with her father and other persons and also under Sec.13 1 alleging that the wife has for a companytinuous period of number less than two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition deserted the husband.
The husband filed an affidavit in reply on 9.4.1986 and companytended that the wife has numberright to withdraw or revoke the companysent after the period of 18 months.
In the joint petition, it was averred that all the matters regarding ornaments, clothes and other movables were settled between them and the wife and renounced her right to claim maintenance.
It also appears that on 15.9.1994 the appellant husband filed another petition for dissolution of marriage against respondent wife HMP No.
On 27.3.1986, the wife filed an application withdrawing her companysent for divorce.
It was signed by both the parties and both of them appeared before Court.
He also prayed that companysistent with the prayer made in the joint Hindu Marriage Petition filed on 21.8.1984 a decree for divorce by mutual companysent may be passed.
Most of the requests for adjournments were made jointly by the advocates appearing for the parties.
On this motion, the Court issued numberice to the wife.
On that day, on the joint application of the advocates of both the parties, the case was adjourned.
On 15.1.1985, the wife filed an application in the Court stating that her statement dated 9.1.1985 was obtained under pressure and threat.
The parties simply sought a decree of dissolution of the marriage by mutual companysent.
They did number stay together from 9.12.1984 onwards.
It seems difference of opinion cropped up between the parties.
The appellant in both the appeals is Sri Ashok G. Hurra the husband and the respondent in both the appeals is Rupa Ashok Hurra the wife .
this submission was objected to by the appellant, denying the averments made in the application and also stating further that the wife has numberright to revoke the companysent which she has legally granted.
The said appeal is filed against the judgment and order of the Gujarat High Court rendered in L.P.A. No.373 of 1996.
The wife seems to have filed an objection thereto.
On the basis of the above and in view of the fact that the marriage between the husband and wife has irretrievably broken down and reunion is number at all possible, the learned single Judge set aside the order passed in Hindu Marriage Petition No.
In the meanwhile, attempts were made by the trial Judge to bring about reconciliation between the husband and the wife.
Subsequently, the case stood posted to various dates and for one reason or other, it got itself adjourned.
W I T H CIVIL APPEAL NO.
Certain facts which are discernible from the records and have some impact in the decision to be rendered, deserve to be numbericed, at this stage The learned single Judge in his judgment rendered in First Appeal No.1070 of 1987 has stated that the appellant husband remarried with one Sonia on 18.8.1985 and a male child named Prasad was born out of the said wedlock.
Both of them are highly educated and intelligent and managing their own affairs and business.
But, it was number successful.
She prayed for withdrawal of her companysent for the petition filed under Section 13B and also prayed for dismissal of the petition.
The main appeal is the one arising out of Special Leave Petition C No.20097 of 1996.
Thereafter, the companyple started residing separately.
Such attempts were made on 30.9.1985, 10.10.1985, 30.10.1985, 9.12.1985, 16.12.1985, 10.1.1986 etc.
Under Section 13B 2 of the Hindu Marriage Act hereinafter referred to as the Act , on a motion by both the parties, six months after the date of presentation of the petition under sub section 1 of the Act, and number later than eighteen months, the Court, shall, after enquiry, pass a decree of divorce by mutual companysent.
On 21.8.1984, a joint petition for divorce was filed under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act.
The companyple have on issue.
In all such requests, mention was made that talks of companypromise settlement between the parties were going on.
On 9.1.1985, the husband and wife together moved a petition under Section 13B of the Act for divorce by mutual companysent.
We will deal with the facts in the main appeal which is companyered by Special Leave Petition No.20097 of 1996.
The marriage between the appellant husband and the respondent wife was solemnized on 3.12.1970 according to the Hindu rites and custom at Ahmedabad.
J. Special Leave granted in both cases.
