SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:-D.M. Dharmadhikari, Arun Kumar, JJ.

Civil Appeal No.3638 OF 2005 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 12377 of 2005) D/d. 13.7.2005.

Neelam Mann - Appellant

Versus

Charanjit Singh Maan - Respondent

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Sections 13B(2) and 21B - Appeal - Limitation - Stay of judgment - Legality - Single judge set aside decree of divorce by mutual consent on the ground of violation of provision of section 13B(2) - Challenged by husband in Letter patent appeal - Division Bench stayed the operation of entire judgment and directed that the appeal will be set down for hearing within one years - Disregarding the provision of section 21B which allows six months' period for trial of petitions - Staying whole judgment with adverse consequences against the wife improper - Order set aside - Matter remitted.

[Paras 4 to 6]

JUDGMENT

D.M. Dharmadhikari, J. - Leave granted.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. The decree of divorce by mutual consent granted by Matrimonial Court was set aside by learned single judge of the High Court in appeal on the ground that contrary to the provisions of Section 13B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the decree was erroneously passed without expiry of the waiting period to be granted to the spouses to stand by the joint petition for mutual divorce.

4. Against the order passed by the learned single judge, the husband preferred a Letters Patent Appeal to the Division Bench of the High Court. By the impugned order, the Division Bench of the High Court, stayed the operation of the entire judgment of the learned Single Judge of the High Court and directed that the appeal will be set down for hearing within one year.

5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we find that the impugned order of the Division Bench of the High Court is palpably erroneous. On an application for stay, the Division Bench ought not to have stayed the whole judgment with adverse consequences against 4 the wife. It is also not correct on the part of the Division Bench to have fixed period of one year for hearing of the appeal disregarding the provisions of section 21B which allows six months' period for trial of the petitions.

6. For the reasons aforesaid, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order of the Division Bench of the High Court is set aside.

7. The case is sent back to the High Court to expeditiously decide the Letters Patent Appeal on merits within a period of six months.

. ..