JUDGMENT
S.S. Saron, J.
1. This is an appeal filed by Malwinder Kaur wife against the judgment and decree dated 28-11-1996 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh.
2. Devinder Pal Singh respondent herein had filed a petition for grant of divorce on the ground of cruelty: The said petition was decreed by the learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh, Aggrieved against the same, Smt. Malwinder Kaur has filed this appeal assailing the judgment and decree aforesaid.
3. During the hearing of the case, the parties to the petition have compromised. A joint application has been filed under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure by both the parties for amendment of the petition for divorce by mutual consent. The said application is accompanied by the amended petition. The application is taken on record and the amendment prayed for is allowed.
4. The Registry is directed to number the same as a Civil Misc. Application.
5. The statement of both the parties have been separately recorded.
6. The respondent Devinder Pal Singh
herein has paid a sum of Rs. 3,50,000/-
which has been accepted by the appellant
wife as full and final settlement of her maintenance for herself and her minor son
Chanpreet Singh. It has also been prayed
that the waiting period of six months for the
grant of divorce by mutual consent be dispensed with In view of the Division Bench
Judgment of this Court in Krishna Khetarpal
v. Satish Lal, AIR 1987 Punjab and Haryana
191.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties with their assistance gone through the records and statements recorded in Court today.
8. The marriage between the parties was soleminized at Chandigarh on 18-11-1990 by way of Anand Karaj ceremony. Out of the wedlock between the parties a son was born on 1-1-1992, who is presently living with the appellant wife. The respondent husband had filed a petition on 5-3-1994 before the District Judge, Chandigarh, for grant of divorce under Section 13(i)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act on the allegations of physical as well as mental cruelty. The said petition was allowed by the learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh, vide his judgment and decree dated 28-11-1996. During the pendency of the appeal in this Court, various attempts were made to mutually settle the matter. At the time of admission of the appeal, it was observed by their Lordships
of the Motion Bench that efforts had been
made to bring about an amicable settlement
between the parties, but at that stage, there
did not seem to be any possibility. Thereafter efforts were made on various dates be
fore the Hon’ble Lok Adalat. The Hon’ble Lok
Adalat ultimately on 23-9-1999 referred the
matter back to this Court for decision on
merits. It is during the hearing of the case
that the present petition for grant of divorce
by mutual consent has been filed in Court
today.
9. The parties have been living separately since 15-7-1993 and the present appeal has also been pending since 1997.
10. The question that arises for consideration is whether the waiting period of six months can be dispensed with. A Division Bench of this Court in Krishna Khetarpal (supra) considered the question as to whether a Matrimonial Court can dissolve a marriage by a decree of divorce between the two Hindus on the, basis of compromise entered Into between the parties during the pendency of the divorce petition without following the procedure prescribed under Section 13-B(2) and without satisfying the requirement of Section 23(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act. The Division Bench after referring to several earlier decisions on the matter, held that the Court can grant relief to the parties where there was a background of litigation and acrimony and divorce by mutual consent appeared to the Court to be the only solution asked for by the parties. In the present case, the parties have been following a litigious course for more than a period of six months, the petition for divorce itself was filed on 5-3-1994 and thereafter the present appeal has been pending since 1997. Statements of the parties to the petition were recorded in the Court and I am satisfied that the marriage has irretrievably broken down. Besides, there has been no collusion while seeking divorce by mutual consent by waiving six months period. Therefore, there has been substantial compliance of the provisions of Section 13-B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act. Therefore, in the circumstances the waiting period of six months is dispensed with in view of the pendency of the divorce proceedings between the parties in this Court for a period of about five years.
11. The parties by way of joint petition have prayed that the marriage between them be dissolved by mutual consent. The statements of both the parties has been separately recorded and they both pray for grant of divorce by mutual consent.
12. Consequently, the petitioner the grant of divorce by mutual consent is allowed and the marriage between the parties is dissolved by a decree for divorce. The Judgment and decree dated 28-11-1996 under appeal is modified and instead of grant of divorce on account of cruelty, the marriage between the parties shall stand dissolved by mutual consent in terms of Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act. The parties shall bear their own costs.