@ Smriti,
Good self discovery on your part!
1. Mulla, in his commentary on the Hindu Marriage Act at page 853 of the 12th edition of the Principles of Hindu Law, states the asked matter as;
"At the same time the view seems to have been taken that the injured or innocent spouse who has obtained a decree for judicial separation should have the right to seek dissolution of the marriage by a decree of divorce where the parties have not resumed cohabitation for a period of two years or more after the passing of such decree."
Judicial separation in details:-
S. 10 of The Hindu Marriage Act
[(1) Either party to a marriage, whether solemnized before or after the commencement of this Act, may present a petition praying fr a decree for judicial separation on any of the grounds specified in sub-section (1) of section 13, and in the case of a wife also on any of the grounds specified in sub-section (2) thereof, as grounds on which a petition for divorce might have been presented.]
(2) Where a decree for judicial separation has been passed, it shall no longer be obligatory for the petitioner to cohabit with the respondent, but the Court may, on the application by petition of either party and on being satisfied of the truth of the statements made in such petition, rescind the decree if it considers it just and reasonable to do so.
The Objects and reasons of Judicial Separation:-
S. 10 deals with judicial separation and the main consequences which flow from a decree for judicial separation. A decree for judicial separation does not have the effect of terminating the marriage.
Some insight into the Joint Committee Report:-
In considering this and the following clauses, the Joint Committee have taken into account the language employed and the scheme adopted in the Special Marriage Act, 1954, recently passed by the Parliament. In view, however, of the fact that Hindu Law has so far recognized polygamy, the Joint Committee feel that the approach to the problems of judicial separation and divorce need not necessarily be the same in both the cases and that it is neither necessary nor desirable in the present case that grounds for judicial separation and grounds for divorce should be identical as in the Special Marriage Act, 1954. Moreover, having regard to the high ideals which the Hindu Community has always lived up to, divorce should not be made easy and the law should be so framed as to provide the maximum opportunities for mutual adjustment. The scheme of this Bill is, therefore, slightly different. Apart from the changes in the language employed, the major changes made in clause 10 are,-
(a) “cruelty” is now a self-contained definition;
(b) One act of infidelity to the marriage tie now furnishes a ground for judicial separation instead of adultery as proposed in the original Bill; and
(c) The definition of “desertion” has been widened so as expressly to include willful neglect of the respondent.
2. Understanding more or less the unfortunate situation you are going through as per your three mails here in the forum my opinion would be to file reply to his divorce not only as wrong and denied but / and in molded wordings make a alternate prayer "grant judicial separation to parties". The reason for this 'counter prayer' is that based on whatever you have mentioned as facts of the matter before us in your various postings it may be difficult for your husband to get divorce on his plain vanilla 'cruelty' allegations grounds that also in a contested divorce suit that he has so far filed. But, the moment there is a 'counter claim' by respondent more so by a 'innocent' wife to the divorce case the ld. Court after going through all the 'material records' may concede to your prayer thus dismissing his.
Another thing in ply is that, Under Sub-section (1) of S. 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the husband or the wife can bring a petition on the ground that "the other party" (and these words are important) has not resumed cohabitation for a period of two years after the passing of a decree for "judicial separation" against that party. The words "the other party" in Sub-section (1) and "against that party" in Clause (viii), in my mind, provide a key to the construction of this provision and these clearly exclude the right of one of the spouses, namely, the party against whom the decree has been granted to claim the protection of a divorce Court for a decree for dissolution of marriage that is why I started the reply with para 1.
It is worth an try for two years wait to see some sea change in his attitude towards second matrimony with a girl child out of unfortunate first wedlock of his!
3. No. he cannot file another petition on same cause of action. i.e. he can either pray for divorce on cruelty grounds and or under judicial separation as the language of S. 13 (1) is very clear. The question of second notice on frivolous cause of action serving on you is out of question here.
4. Time wise at least I cannot forecast. It all depends upon load of the Court and adjournments read with either or both parties lawyer getting sick and or riots, natural calamity, ld. PO on leave to typist pool on leave etc. etc. If positive vibes there then everything falls in its place sooner than later.
Now suggested to try sitting with an seasoned Advocate locally and discuss what you read in your thread post as replies.
All the best.