JUDGMENT K. S. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. Petitioner and the first respondent are the husband and wife. Their marriage was solemnised on 2-9-1995 according to Hindu rites. They have no children. The relationship between the husband and wife was not cordial. Various disputes cropped up between them, and they are living separately for three years. Alleging cruelty against the husband, father of the first respondent filed a complaint before the police, which led to filing of C. C. No. 405 of 1998 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Kochi under S.498A of the IPC and the same is pending consideration. Complaint was filed by the first respondent's father on 28-1-1998. In the said case, not only the petitioner, but also his brother and other relations are parties. Anticipating arrest they approached this court and filed Crl. M. C. No. 645 of 1998. This court granted anticipatory bail. While the pendency of the matter, this court also noted that petitioner paid an amount of Rs. 1 lakh to the complainant. 2. A petition for divorce was also preferred by the first respondent before the Family Court, Ernakulam as O. P. No. 216 of 1998 under S.13(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act, and the same is pending consideration before the Family Court. Petitioner in the meantime filed I. A. No. 1804 of 1998 in O. P. No. 216 of 1998 for staying all further proceedings before the Family Court during the pendency of the Criminal Case, C. C. No. 405 of 1998 pending before Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Kochi. That petition was however dismissed by the Family Court by order dated 30-11-1998. Aggrieved by the same petitioner has filed this writ petition. 3. I heard counsel for the petitioner, Sri. T. Ravikumar, senior counsel for the first respondent, Sri. T. P. Kelu Nambiar, and Sri. P. K. Suresh Kumar. During the course of arguments, I ascertained from them whether there is any possibility of revival of marriage. Counsel after getting instructions submitted that there is no possibility of revival of marriage, and both of them agreed for a divorce. It is also pointed out they have no children out of the wedlock. P. K. Suresh Kumar. During the course of arguments, I ascertained from them whether there is any possibility of revival of marriage. Counsel after getting instructions submitted that there is no possibility of revival of marriage, and both of them agreed for a divorce. It is also pointed out they have no children out of the wedlock. Senior counsel appearing for the first respondent brought to my knowledge a decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in In Re Grandhi Venkata Chitti Abbai, AIR 1999 A.P., 91, and submitted that since there is no possibility of revival of marriage, and the parties have already agreed for a divorce, the period of six months under S.13B of the Hindu Marriage Act be waived in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. Parties on either side agreed to the said course as well. They also agreed that they are not interested in prosecuting C. C. No. 405 of 1998 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate II, Kochi. In the meantime they also filed a petition under S.13B of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Family Court, Ernakulam as O. P. (Divorce) No. 9 of 1999, a copy of which is produced as Ext. P4. It is stated in the said petition that they started living separately from 7-12-1997 onwards, and that they have no intention to revive the marriage. It is also stated that there is no possibility for reconciliation also. 4. Since a petition for divorce of marriage has already been preferred before the Family Court, Ernakulam by the parties, the only question that has to be considered in this petition is whether the period of six months prescribed for consideration of petition for divorce should be waived or not. This question was considered by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in In Re. Grandhi Venkata Chitti Abbai, AIR 1999 A.P. 91 and held as follows: "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 wilt 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." Andhra Pradesh High Court in the above mentioned decision quoted with approval a decision of the Delhi High Court in Arvind Sharma v. Dhara Sharma, 1998 (1) CCC 22 , wherein Delhi High Court has taken a similar view in the following lines after reviewing the case law on the subject: "If S.13B(2) is read as mandatory the very purpose of liberalising the policy of decree or divorce by mutual consent will be frustrated more so when the parties started living separately for a considerable time. Thus, S.13B(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". A Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court also taken the same view in Roopa Reddy v. Prabhakar Reddy, AIR 1994 Karnt. 12. Same is the view taken by the Delhi High Court in Dhanjit Vadra v. Beena Vadra, AIR 1990 Del. 146 and by the Gujarat High Court in D. H. Garasia v. N. Mansu, AIR 1988 Guj. 159 . So also a similar view taken by this court in Visalakshi v. K. P. Sivaraman Nair, 1991 (2) KLJ 361 . 5. I am of the view, in the instant case, applying the principles laid down by various courts, the request for consideration of application for divorce by mutual consent before the expiry of the stipulated period is justified. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the Family Court, Ernakulam, to take up consideration O. P. (Divorce) No. 9 of 1999 and dispose of the same at the earliest without waiting for expiry of six months period. Since parties have agreed for divorce by mutual consent, it is unnecessary to prosecute the criminal case. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the Family Court, Ernakulam, to take up consideration O. P. (Divorce) No. 9 of 1999 and dispose of the same at the earliest without waiting for expiry of six months period. Since parties have agreed for divorce by mutual consent, it is unnecessary to prosecute the criminal case. Consequently, C. C. No. 405 of 1998 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate II, Kochi, will stand quashed. Original Petition is disposed of as above.