Bhat, J.:— The appellant in the above appeal who is the petitioner in the two Miscellaneous Petitions is the wife of the respondent.
2. They were married on 17-6-1982 and fell out in 1986 and thereafter they have been residing separately. In June 1986, both parties together filed a petition before the Subordinate Judge's Court, Hosdurg under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 praying for a decree of divorce based on their consent. The case was adjourned for the statutory period of six months at the end of which the wife resiled from the consent and the petition was dismissed. In 1987 the husband filed OP 32 of 1987 before the Subordinate Judge's Court, Hosdurg seeking decree of divorce under Sections 13(1)(i) and 13(1)(a), that is, on grounds of adultery and cruelty. The petition was resisted by the wife, but was allowed by learned Subordinate Judge on the ground of adultery under Section 13(1)(i) of the Act. The ground of cruelty urged was negatived. The decree for divorce was passed on 30-1-1988. That decree is challenged by the wife in the appeal filed on 14-3-1988. The appeal has been pending before us for over three years. On 2-4-1991 the parties filed CMP 1829 of 1991 under order XXIII Rule 3 C.P.C submitting that they have entered into a settlement and the appeal may be allowed in terms of the compromise and OP 32 of 1987 is dismissed.
3. The compromise petition states that in full satisfaction of all the marital claims of the wife and all claims arising in relation to the decree of divorce and towards the future maintenance of their minor child, the wife has already received a cheque for Rs. 23,000/- issued by the husband and drawn on the Hosdurg Service Co - operative Bank on 20-3-1991. Learned counsel representing the wife submits that the cheque has already been encashed in pursuance of the compromise. Parties have also filed CMP 1830 of 1991 under Section 13B of the Act stating that they have been residing separately since June 1986, that it has become impossible for them to re-unite and live as husband and wife and they agree for a decree for divorce being passed in terms of Section 13B of the Act. They also state that due provision has already been made for the claims of the wife in connection with the marriage.
4. Having regard to the nature of the contentions raised by the parties before the trial court and before us, we are satisfied that the compromise petition and the petition under Section 13B of the Act filed before us are the result of voluntary consent of both the parties and such consent has not been obtained by force, fraud or undue influence and also that there is no collusion between the parties.
5. The question naturally arising is whether this court can pass a decree under Section 13B of the Hindu. Marriage Act without following the formalities prescribed in the provision. According to Section 13B, on a petition being so presented alleging that the spouses have been living separately for a period of one year or more and that they have not been able to live together and that they have mutually agreed that the marriage should be dissolved, the court shall, on being satisfied, after hearing the parties and after making such enquiries which 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 on the motion of both the parties made not earlier than six months after the date of the presentation of the petition and not later than 18 months after the said date provided that the petition is not withdrawn in the meantime.
6. The provision has been enacted to water down the rigour of the requirements of the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act and to enable spouses to part amicably where the marriage has broken down and the spouses cannot be reconciled. Break-down of marriage has not been accepted as a ground sufficient to pass decree for divorce before the incorporation of Section 13B. The purpose of the provision is obviously to save the spouses from the ruinous consequence of marriages which have broken down and cannot be saved. The legislative policy disclosed in the requirement that the court should wait for six months is to give and opportunity to the parties to see if the marriage can be saved. That is why the legislature prescribed postponement of the passing the order on the petition filed under Section 13B of the Act. In cases like the present one where the parties are before the appellate court after having fought a battle in the trial court and where the court is satisfied that the parties had sufficient time to think over their own future and have come to a definite conclusion that the marital Relationship has to be terminated, in our opinion, the court should take a liberal view of the procedural requirements and refrain from insisting on the waiting period of six months. The parties have been residing separably for the last over five years and the wife has already encased the cheque given by the husband in terms of the compromise. This is yet another reason which would persuade the court not to subject the parties to a fresh waiting period of six months. We find that such a liberal view has been taken by a Division Bench consisting of Justice D.S Tewatia and Justice M.M Punchhi (as he then was) of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Krishna Khetarpal v. Satish Lal (AIR 1987 P & H 191). In the light of the above principle, and in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we are satisfied that this court is not only entitled to pass a decree, but has a duty to pass a decree without insisting on the waiting period of six months.
7. Accordingly, we record the compromise in CMP 1829 of 1991. We allow CMP 1830 of 1991 and pass a decree for dissolution of marriage under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. We also set aside the decree in OP 32 of 1987, dismiss OP 32 of 1987 and allow the appeal, directing the parties to beer costs throughout.