( 1 ) HEARD Sri A. P. Venugopal, Counsel representing the 1st petitioner/ husband and Sri K. Raghavacharyulu, counsel representing the 2nd petitioner/wife.

( 2 ) THE parents of the wife are present in Court and the father of the husband also is present in Court. Both the 1st petitioner and the 2nd petitioner also are present in court and all these parties are identified by their respective Counsel.

( 3 ) THE facts in brief are that the marriage between the petitioners was solemnised on 27-7-2001 at Visakhapatnam as per the Hindu rites and customs. It is further stated that ever since the date of marriage, both the parties have been living separately due to differences and there is no chance of the parties coming together and live a happy conjugal life. In view of the same, on the advise of the elders of the community and the well-wishers, the parties have decided to separate and lead their own personal lives on the terms which are specified as hereunder: a. That the 1st petitioner withdraws all the allegations made out in the legal notice and also the main O. P and as such they are ab intio nonest. B. That likewise, the 2nd petitioner withdraws all the allegations made out in the reply notice against the petitioner No. 1 and as such they are ab initio non est. C. That the 1st petitioner has agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,11,000/- to the 2nd petitioner towards permanent alimony, future maintenance, and all other incidental expenses incurred by the petitioner No. 2, and the petitioner No. 2 further agrees that there would be no claims whatsoever by her against the petitioner No. 1 in the future or vice versa. D. The amount of Rs. 1,11,000/- is paid by petitioner No. 1 under D. D. No. 801562, dated 21-12-2002 for rs. 50,000/- and D. D. No. 374794, dated 20-12-2002 for Rs. 61,000/-, both drawn on Andhra Bank, Service centre, Visakhapatnam and the same shall be acknowledged by the 2nd petitioner herein. E. O. P. No. 206/2002 on the file of II additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga reddy District shall stand disposed of in terms of the compromise. In view of the aforesaid terms, it is prayed that a mutual consent decree of divorce dissolving the marriage dated 27-7-2001 solemnised between the petitioners may be passed in the interest of justice.

( 4 ) SRI Venugopal Rao, the learned counsel representing the 1st petitioner/ husband had submitted that there is no possibility of the spouses living together and that is the reason why the elders also had thought of settling the matter once for all and the learned Counsel also pointed out that the elders of both the spouses also are present in Court. The learned Counsel also had delivered two Demand Drafts relating to the amounts specified in paragraph-3 of the petition and the Demand drafts were received by the 2nd petitioner/ wife.

( 5 ) SRI Raghavacharyulu, the learned counsel representing the wife had pointed out to Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage act, 1955 - Act 25 to 1955, hereinafter referred to in short as "act", and had contended that the very object of introducing the provision by virtue of Act 78 of 1976 is with a view to provide for divorce by mutual consent. The learned Counsel also submitted that in the view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties need not be driven to the Court where the O. P. is pending and inasmuch as the parties are willing to have a decree of divorce by mutual consent by this Court, a mutual consent decree of divorce may be granted by dissolving the marriage dated 27-7-2001. The learned Counsel also had submitted that the fact that the amounts settled had been paid by way of Demand drafts and had been received, by itself shows that there is amicable settlement of the matter between the parties. The learned counsel also had placed strong reliance on K. Omprakash v. K. Nalini, AIR 1986 ap 167 (DB), and also Madhuri Mehta v. Meeta Varma, (1997) 11 SCC 81. Further elaborating his submissions, the learned counsel pointed out t