JUDGMENT Hon’ble Shashi Kant Gupta, J.—This writ petition has been filed against the order dated 14.1.2014 whereby the application jointly filed by the parties under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act for mutual divorce has been rejected on the ground that it was premature. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act. 3. Sections 13B and 14 of the Hindu Marriage Act (in short “Act”) which are relevant for the purpose of deciding the present petition are quoted hereinbelow; “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 Laws (Amendment) 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 earlier than six months after the date of the presentation of the petition referred to in sub-section (1) and not later than eighteen months after the said date, if the petition is not withdrawn in the mean time, the Court shall, on being satisfied, after hearing the parties and after making such inquiry as it thinks fit, that a marriage has been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 of divorce declaring the marriage to be dissolved with effect from the date of the decree.” “14. No petition for divorce to be presented within one year of marriage.—(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, it shall not be competent for any Court to entertain any petition for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce, unless at the date of the presentation of the petition one year has elapsed since the date of the marriage: Provided that the Court may, upon application made to it in accordance with such rules as may be made by the High Court in that behalf, allow a petition to be presented before one year has elapsed since the date of the marriage on the ground that the case is one of exceptional hardship to the petitioner or of exceptional depravity on the part of the respondent, but, if it appears to the Court at the hearing of the petition that petitioner obtained leave to present the petition by any mis-representation or concealment of the nature of the case, the Court may, if it pronounces a decree, do so subject to the condition that the decree shall not have effect until after the expiry of one year from the date of the marriage or may dismiss the petition without prejudice to any petition which may be brought after the expiration of the said one year upon the same or substantially the same facts as those alleged in support of the petition so dismissed. (2) In disposing of any application under this section for leave to present a petition for divorce before the expiration of one year from the date of the marriage, the Court shall have regard to the interests of any children of the marriage and to the question whether there is a reasonable probability of a reconciliation between the parties before the expiration of the said one year.” 4. A perusal of the record shows that the marriage was solemnized on 29.5.2013 between the parties. Thereafter, it appears that they entered into a compromise on 16.12.2013 to seek a mutual divorce. On 2.1.2014, a joint application under Section 13 B was filed by the parties before the Court below for seeking divorce on the basis of mutual consent but the same was rejected by order dated 14.1.2014 by the Court below as premature and the divorce petition was returned back. Hence the present writ petition. 5. On 2.1.2014, a joint application under Section 13 B was filed by the parties before the Court below for seeking divorce on the basis of mutual consent but the same was rejected by order dated 14.1.2014 by the Court below as premature and the divorce petition was returned back. Hence the present writ petition. 5. Section 13B of the Act was introduced (w.e.f. 27.5.1976) by the amending Act of 1976. From a bare perusal of Section 13 B of the Hindu Marriage Act, it is evident that a petition for divorce by mutual consent can be filed before the Court concerned by both the parties to a marriage together on the ground that they have been living separately for a period of one year or more and have not been able to live together and have mutually agreed that their marriage should be dissolved. 6. As it is clear from the above, Sub-section (1) of Section 13B is an enabling Section for presenting a petition for dissolution of a marriage by a decree of divorce by mutual consent. One of the grounds provided is that the parties have been living separately for a period of one year or more and have not been able to live together. Sub-section (2) of Section 13B, however, provides the procedural steps that are required to be taken once the petition for mutual divorce has been filed and six months have expired from the date of presentation of the petition before the Court. The language is very specific and it intends that on a motion of both the parties made not earlier than six months after the date of presentation of the petition referred to in Sub-section (1) and not later than 18 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, pass a decree of divorce declaring the marriage to be dissolved with effect from the date of the decree. When all the ingredients are proved a decree of divorce cannot be refused. 7. In the present case, the marriage was solemnized on 29.5.2013. Since the petition for mutual divorce was filed within less than a year of the marriage, the petition for divorce in view of the Section 13B was not maintainable. When all the ingredients are proved a decree of divorce cannot be refused. 7. In the present case, the marriage was solemnized on 29.5.2013. Since the petition for mutual divorce was filed within less than a year of the marriage, the petition for divorce in view of the Section 13B was not maintainable. Thus, the said divorce petition filed on the ground of mutual consent was rejected with a direction for return of the petition to the petitioner. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that proviso to sub Section (1) of Section 14 of the Hindu Marriage Act provides that the Court may upon an application made to it in accordance with such rules as may be made by the High Court in that behalf, allow a petition to be presented before one year has elapsed from the date of the marriage on the ground that the case is one of exceptional hardship to the petitioner or of exceptional depravity on the part of the respondent, as such, the Court below has committed illegality in not considering the proviso to Section 14 of the Act in right perspective while returning the plaint. It was further submitted that the petitioner has discharged the statutory obligation imposed upon by Sections 13B and 14 of the Act as the case of the petitioner fell within the category of the exceptional cases under the proviso to Section 14 of the Act. It was further submitted that the Court below has totally overlooked the proviso to Section 14 of the Act and has not considered the question of hardship which is likely to be caused in the event of the divorce petition made by the petitioner being rejected. 9. Section 13B which introduced (w.e.f 27.5.1976) by the amending Act of 1976 is a specific provision dealing with dissolution of marriage by mutual consent provided the couple have been living separately for a period of one year or more; that they have not been able to live together and have mutually agreed that the marriage should be dissolved. 10. Section 13B is an independent section by itself. There is no scope for introduction of any other qualification which the legislature in its wisdom did not think necessary to incorporate. In fact the provisions of Sections 13B and 13/14 covers two different fields. 11. 10. Section 13B is an independent section by itself. There is no scope for introduction of any other qualification which the legislature in its wisdom did not think necessary to incorporate. In fact the provisions of Sections 13B and 13/14 covers two different fields. 11. Under Section 13 of the Act marriage can be dissolved by decree of divorce on the various grounds enumerated therein and the same has been further qualified by Section 14 that no petition for divorce to be presented within one year of the marriage. However, an exception has been carved out by inserting a proviso in Section 14, with an intention to mollify the effect of the one year’s limit in very exceptional cases as the proviso to Section 14 of the Act engrafts a very important qualification on the general rule laid down in the section that no petition for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce can be entertained by the Court before the statutory period expires. It enables the Court in the exercise of its discretion to grant leave to present such petition before the expiry of the one year’s limit in a case of ‘exceptional hardship’ to the petitioner or ‘exceptional depravity’ of the respondent. 12. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the proviso to Section 14 would have to be read alongwith Section 13B of the Act whereunder the divorce has been sought by mutual consent. The question that arises for determination by this Court is that whether Section 14 of the act qualifies Section 13 alone or does it also qualify Section 13B of the Act. 13. That there can be no doubt that when Section 14 was enacted the legislature intended that Section 13 would be qualified by it and hence no statutory period was prescribed in Section 13 itself. Hence in a petition for divorce under Section 13, the statutory period for filing a petition would be governed by the provisions of Section 14. 14. However when the legislature inserted Section 13 B and introduced divorce by mutual consent in the act, it did not intend it to be qualified by Section 14 and hence proceeded to specifically prescribe a statutory period in the section itself, unlike in Section 13, where no period has been prescribed. 15. 14. However when the legislature inserted Section 13 B and introduced divorce by mutual consent in the act, it did not intend it to be qualified by Section 14 and hence proceeded to specifically prescribe a statutory period in the section itself, unlike in Section 13, where no period has been prescribed. 15. It hence transpires that Section 13 B is an independent section in so far as it statutorily prescribes time period in the section itself. 16. In my opinion if the interpretation of the learned counsel for the petitioner is accepted it would render the time provided in Section 13 B futile and render the provision otiose or nugatory to the extent it provides for the period of one year. 17. Another aspect of the matter is that the period of one year has been prescribed in Section 14 and the same is relaxed only by means of a proviso. No such proviso finds place in Section 13 B. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the proviso of Section 14 should be applied to Section 13 B is liable to be rejected. 18. It is settled law that a proviso does not travel beyond the provision to which it is a proviso. In the words of Bhagwati J:. ‘that a proviso to a particular provision of a statute only embraces the field which is covered by the main provision. It carves out an exception to the main provision to which it has been enacted as a proviso and to no other.’ 19. The scheme of the Act clearly indicates that Section 13B cannot be read alongwith Section 14 of the Act and the proviso to Section 14 by no stretch of imagination will be applicable in the matters of mutual divorce by consent. The period of separation of one year as provided under Section 13B and conditions as further provided under Section 13B of Sub-clause 2 is mandatory for dissolving the marriage by mutual consent. The statutory conditions have to be adhered to for seeking a divorce by way of mutual consent. 20. The petition for divorce by mutual consent must be presented to the Court jointly by both the parties and not by one party stating that the other party to the marriage has given his or her consent to the dissolution of the marriage by decree of the Court. 20. The petition for divorce by mutual consent must be presented to the Court jointly by both the parties and not by one party stating that the other party to the marriage has given his or her consent to the dissolution of the marriage by decree of the Court. The motion before the Court for hearing the petition should also be by both parties. The Court will not proceed to do so unless both the parties have resolved to seek divorce by mutual consent. The provision of Section 23 of the Act as far as they may be relevant can also apply to a petition for dissolution of marriage by consent of the parties. 21. The time period stipulated by the legislature as provided under Section 13B has been so fixed that during this time, the parties get time for introspection. The period prescribed is mandatory and cannot be waived. The language of the statue is clear and plain, admitting no ambiguity, and therefore assigned the plain meaning which naturally flows from the reading thereof and leads to a singular construction. Moreover, the words “not earlier than six months” as provided under Section 13B do not brook of any other interpretation nor does the section speaks of any judicial discretion. The language of the section is clear and do not speak of any discretion to be used by the Courts for curtailing the limit. The proviso to Section 14 of the Act is intended to mollify the effect of one year limitation when the divorce is sought under “Section 13” of the Act. Hence, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that proviso to Section 14 would qualify Section 13 B of the Act has no merit. 22. In view of the above, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. The petition filed within less than one year of marriage on the ground of mutual consent is not at all maintainable and the Court below was fully justified in not entertaining the petition filed for divorce by mutual consent as premature with a direction for return of the divorce petition to the petitioner. I do not find any fault with the approach adopted by the Court below which may warrant any interference by this Court. 23. In the result, this petition is dismissed. —————