J. P. DESAI, J. ( 1 ) * * * * ( 2 ) SECTION 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act which provides for divorce by mutual consent reads as follows: Sec. 13-B. Divorce by mutual consent: (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act a petition for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce may be presented to the District Court by both the parties to a marriage together whether such marriage was solemnized before or after the commencement of the Marriage I was (Amendments) Act 1976 on the ground that they have been living separately for a period of one year or more that they have not been able to live together and that they have mutually agreed that the marriage should be dissolved; (2) On the motion of both the parties made not earlier than six months after the date of presentation of the petition referred to in sub-sec. (1) and not later than eighteen months after the said date if the petition is not withdrawn in the meantime the Court shall on being satisfied after hearing the parties and after making such inquiry as it thinks fit that a marriage has been solemnized and that the averments in the petition are true pass a decree for divorce declaring the marriage to be dissolved with effect from the date of decree. Sub-section (2) of sec. 13-B says that the Court should wait for six mouths before passing the decree for divorce. In the present case the original petition for restitution of conjugal rights under sec. 9 was filed by the present appellant sometime in the year 1984 and he said petition was dismissed by the trial Court on 28-3-1985 against which the present appeal has been filed. Before this Court the application has been amended with the permission of the Court and the application is now treated as an application udder sec. 13-B for divorce by natural consent. In a case before the Allahabad High Court reported in Indrawal v. Radhey Raman AIR 1981 Allahabad 151 a petition for divorce was filed by one of the parties and a decree for divorce was passed by the trial Court. In appeal the parties entered into a compromise and prayed that the decree for divorce may be granted under sec. 13-B of the Act. That request was granted by the appellate Court. In appeal the parties entered into a compromise and prayed that the decree for divorce may be granted under sec. 13-B of the Act. That request was granted by the appellate Court. In the present case also the amendment is sought for before this Court to treat the petition for restitution of conjugal rights as a petition for divorce by mutual consent and that has been granted by this Court. Decree for divorce by mutual consent can therefore be passed under sec. 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act. ( 3 ) SUB-SECTION (2) of sec. 13-13 of course provides that decree for divorce has to be passed after the expiry of six months from the date of presentation of the petition for divorce by mutual consent. The amendment is granted by this Court on 19-3-1987 and six months have still not elapsed from the date of the said amendment. But at the same time the original petition was filed on 9-3-1984 and more than two years have elapsed since then. The amendment may relate back to the date of the presentation of the original petition and therefore also it can be said that six months have elapsed and therefore there cannot he any objection in passing a decree for divorce. It is again a well-settled proposition of law that a statutory provision though in a mandatory form can yet be treated as direction in nature and there are weighty reasons v. warranting the reading of sec. 13-B clause (2) as directory. The Legislature has by enacting sec. 13-B of the Act liberalised the tendency of providing relief to parties on the basis of their mutual consent from their broken marriages. Th s relief is granted by bringing about a profound alteration in the concept of a Hindu marriage from that of a sacrament to a contract. By that alteration law has definitely set its face against forcible perpetuation of the status of matrimony between unwilling parties. The provision of the period of six months fixed by sec. 13-B (2) is not a Rule relating to the jurisdiction of the Courts to entertain a petition filed for divorce by consent. The question of jurisdiction is dealt with by sec. 13-B (1) which must be strictly complied with while sec. 13-B (2) is a part of mere procedure. The provision of the period of six months fixed by sec. 13-B (2) is not a Rule relating to the jurisdiction of the Courts to entertain a petition filed for divorce by consent. The question of jurisdiction is dealt with by sec. 13-B (1) which must be strictly complied with while sec. 13-B (2) is a part of mere procedure. It must therefore be interpreted as a handmaid of justice in order to advance and further the interests of justice and not as a technical Rule. It is pertinent to note that sec. 13-B (2) provides that decree has to be passed not earlier than six months and not later than 18 months from the date of presentation of the petition. If we take it that the provision contained in sec. 13-B (2) is mandatory then in a given case a Court may not be able to pass a decree for divorce by mutual consent if the period of 18 months has expired for some reasons beyond the control of the parties. In view of this I am inclined to say that the provision contained in sec. 13-B (2) is directory and not mandatory. At any rate this provision cannot come in the way of an appellate Court in passing a decree for divorce by mutual consent in a given case even before the expiry of six months from the date of the presentation of the petition. When a Court finds that it is not possible to arrive at a reconciliation between the parties and the parties are living apart for long and their wedlock has virtually become a deadlock it would be futile to wait for a period of six months. Chances of reunion have completely faded away in the present case and therefore I think that a decree for divorce by mutual consent should be passed immediately. I am fortified in this view of mine by a Division Bench judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court reported in K Omprakash v. K. Nalini AIR 1086 AP 167. I may at the same time add here a word of caution that simply because the provision of sec. 13 can be said to be directory it does not necessarily follow that in all cases the Court should pass a decree for divorce even before the expiry of six months. I may at the same time add here a word of caution that simply because the provision of sec. 13 can be said to be directory it does not necessarily follow that in all cases the Court should pass a decree for divorce even before the expiry of six months. It will depend upon the facts of each case whether decree should be passed before the expiry of six months or the Court should wait for a period of six months or more. The Court will have to exercise its discretion judicially in considering whether decree for divorce by mutual consent should be passed in a particular case even before the expiry of the period of six months. Decree modified. .