B.S.A. SWAMY, J.

( 1 ) ASSAILING the order of the Senior Civil Judge, Rajam, dated 10-7-1998 made in unnumbered IA in GR No. 707 (dated 23-6-1998) in OP No. 8 of 1998 wherein the subordinate Court refused to advance the hearing of OP No. 8 of 1998, filed under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act (for short, the Act) seeking divorce by mutual consent, from 28-12-1998 to 29-6-1998, the present revision petition is filed.

( 2 ) THE factual matrix of the case are that the second petitioner was given in marriage to the first petitioner about a decade back and she has also given birth to two daughters aged about 9 years and 7 years. As per the version of the second petitioner-wife, the first petitioner-husband was habituated for bad vices apart from developing grouse for giving birth to two female children and started harassing the second petitioner both mentally and physically. By 1995 no point of retrieval has taken place and serious differences have arisen and it has become impossible for her to live with him. In those circumstances, she came out of the marital house and initially filed MC No. 17 of 1995 under Section 125 Crl. PC on the file of District Munsif Court, Rajam, seeking maintenance and the Court seemed to have granted maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500. 00p. m. to the second petitioner and her children. Thereafter, she filed a regular petition OS No. 18 of 1997 in the same Court seeking maintenance under the Act. In the interregnum period she has also initiated criminal proceedings against the first petitioner and his parents by giving complaint to the police under Section 498-A 1pc which was taken on file by the Magistrate as CCNo. 44 of 1996. All these facts have established that the marriage has broken irrevocably and no point of retrieval has emerged. In those circumstances, the village elders and well-wishers of both the parties entered in the scene and effected a compromise whereunder sufficient safeguards were provided for the maintenance of the second petitioner and marriage of her children, apart from the fact that both the parties agreed to take divorce by mutual consent. Pursuant to the terms of the agreement, both the parties filed OP No. 8 of 1998 under Section 13-B of the Act on 28-6-1998 and the same was posted to 28-12-1998. e. , after six months of presentation of the OP as required under the statute. e. , under Section 13b (2) of the Act. But under the terms of the compromise, as no maintenance was provided during the pendency of the divorce application and the amounts agreed to be paid by the first petitioner have to be paid only after the grant of divorce, the petitioner came up with this application to advance the hearing of the OP under Rule 109 (2) of Civil Rules of Practice and with a request to advance the hearing of the case to 29-6-1998. The senior Civil Judge in unnumbered IA GR No. 707 dated 23-6-1998 dismissed the application, as the case has to be taken up for hearing only after expiry of the statutory period of six months from the date of filing of the suit. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed the present revision petition.

( 3 ) I summoned both the parties to find out whether there is any last minute possibility of saving the marriage. While the first petitioner came to the Court in almost hangover state, the second petitioner categorically pointed out her position and submitted that it is impossible for her to live with the first petitioner. It is only after failure of all the efforts the second petitioner was forced to initiate the above proceedings against the first petitioner and she is not interested in continuing marital relations with the first petitioner. From the above facts and circumstances, it is crystal clear that the marriage between the parties has broken in unequivocal terms and the possibility of revival of the marital relationship is practically remote.

( 4 ) NOW, the only question to be decided by the Court is whether the parties have to wait for the statutory period of six months specified under Section 13-B (2) of the Act for taking divorce.

( 5 ) THERE is no possibility of revival of the marriage. The entire concept of Hindu Law revolves round the principle diat the marriage is not for lust but for procreation of the children who may ultimately be responsible to sec that their parents to reach heaven but not hell and in that direction the entire legislation under the Hindu Law makes it obligatory on the part of the Courts to make last minute efforts to save the marriage at any cost. Keeping this principle in mind, I am of the view that the Legislature fixed six months time to take divorce by mutual consent with a view that in the interregnum period the tempers may come down and parties may realise the consequences of separation more so the fate of the children and they may try to enter into a compromise if sufficient time-lag is provided to think over before finally parting their ways. When once such a situation is ruled out having liberalised the process of divorce by mutual consent which was not there prior to the amendment it will not serve any purpose in directing the parties to continue the agony for six more months. Hence, in a case of this nature, I feel that the statutory period of six months prescribed under the statute for taking divorce by mutual consent can be waived and the parties can be given liberty to part their company without waiting for the statutory period. It is suffice to state that the Delhi High Court in Arvind Sharma v. Dhara Sharma, 1998 {1} CCC 22, has taken a similar view in the following lines after reviewing the case law on the subject. "if Section 13-B (2) is read as mandatory the very purpose of liberalising the policy of decree of divorce by mutual consent will be frustrated more so when the parties started living separately for a considerable time. Thus, Section 13-B (2) though it is mandatory in form is directory in substance. Hence, the argument that the period of six months for the second motion cannot at all be waived is not sustainable in law. "

( 6 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, the order of the senior Civil Judge, Rajam is set aside and he is directed to prepone the hearing of OP No. 8 of 1998 to 25-9-1998 and dispose of the same and both the parties are directed to appear before the Court on the next day of hearing to finally decide whether they intend to continue the marital relationship or insist for passing of the orders on the divorce application filed by them.

( 7 ) THE Civil Revision Petition is accordingly allowed. No costs.