Short Note : By this revision, the applicant-wife seeks to challenge the validity of the order of the trial Court granting leave under section 14 of the Hindu Marriage Act for entertaining the petition, a little before the expiry of one year. The cha1lenge was on the ground that the trial Court granted the aforesaid leave without notice of the application under section 14 to the other side. Reliance was placed on the following rules framed by this Court for regulating the proceedings under section 14 of the Hindu Marriage Act: "3. Application for leave under section 14 of the Act - Where any party to the marriage desires to present a petition for divorce within three years of such marriage, he or she shall apply by an application for leave of the Court- ……………… (3) Notice of the application along with the copy of the application and of the petition shall be served on the respondent. (4) When the Court grants leave, the petition shall be deemed to have been duly filed on the date of the said order." 2. Held: From the perusal of the aforesaid rules, it is apparent that the lower Court was required to give notice of the application under section 14 to the other side before making any order granting leave. From the language of sub-rule (4), as quoted above, it is also apparent that when the Court grants leave, the petition is deemed to have been duly filed on the date of the order granting such leave. 3. Now the question arises whether any useful purpose will be served by setting aside the order impugned and directing the lower Court to decide the same afresh after notice to the other side. The prescribed period of one year has now already elapsed. Under these circumstances, it will be futile to make an order of remand directing the lower Court to decide the question of grant of leave applied for afresh. 4. Being faced with this situation, the learned counsel appearing for the applicant contended that it would be proper to dismiss the main petition itself on the ground that it was filed before the expiry of the prescribed period, because the order granting leave under section 14 was apparently against the rules. 4. Being faced with this situation, the learned counsel appearing for the applicant contended that it would be proper to dismiss the main petition itself on the ground that it was filed before the expiry of the prescribed period, because the order granting leave under section 14 was apparently against the rules. It is true that this course, as suggested by the applicant, would have been adopted or the matter would have been remanded, had there been no discretion left with the Court to entertain a petition presented before the expiry of one year. No doubt when an application is made for entertaining the main petition for divorce before the lapse of the time prescribed, notice must go to the respondent and if on such notice, the respondent appears and shows cause that the premature petition should not have been entertained on account of any mis-representation or concealment, the Court has a discretion either to entertain the petition or to pronounce a decree with the condition that it shall not be operative until after the expiry of the prescribed period from the date of marriage or it may dismiss the petition. Such a dismissal does not prohibit filing of a fresh petition after the prescribed period upon file same facts as were alleged in the dismissed petition. This is clear from the language of section 14 of the Act. AIR 1967 J&K 89 relied on. Revision dismissed.