JUDGMENT :

Kurian, J.

Leave granted.

2. The appellant approached this Court with certain grievances regarding the order dated 17.08.2016 passed by the High Court in Contempt Case (C) No.964/2016. The allegation is that Respondent No.1 has violated the terms of settlement whereby the appellant and Respondent No.1 had been granted decree of divorce by mutual consent. The appellant/wife has a lawyer daughter and the Respondent No.1 is himself a lawyer of this Court.

3. The appellant and the Respondent No.1 are present before this Court. In clear, unmistakable and categorical terms both of them have submitted that they only want peace. Both of them have a case that they are emotionally stressed on account of continuing litigations between them and allegations raised against each other.

4. The whole purpose of granting a decree of divorce by mutual consent is only to enable the parties to part as friends and not to continue as foes thereafter.

5. We had a doubt in our mind as to whether this was a decree granted on mutual consent and, therefore, we had also sought for the records from the Family Court concerned.

6. Now that the parties only want the terms of the settlement to be respected and