VEENA BIRBAL, J.

1. Notice. Mr. Nitya Sharma accepts notice on behalf of respondent no.2.

2. With the consent of the parties, appeal is taken up for final disposal.

3. By way of this appeal, challenge has been made to the order dated 27th August, 2011 passed in HMA 421/11 and order dated 18th February, 2012 passed in review application.

4. The appellant and respondent no.2 had filed a joint petition i.e., HMA 421/2011 under section 13(B)(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) before the learned ADJ, Delhi praying for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce. A joint statement of parties was recorded on 1st August, 2011 before the court. Thereafter on 27th August, 2011 petition was disposed of.

5. On 1st February, 2012, a joint petition for second motion i.e., HMA 52/2012 under section 13(B)(2) of the Act was filed alleging therein that after the disposal of the earlier petition i.e. HMA 421/2011, they have not lived as husband and wife. There is no cohabition between them since April, 2010 and since then they are living separately, as such, their marriage be dissolved by decree of divorce under section 13(B)(2) of the Act. After filing of the said petition, it was revealed to the parties that their first motion petition was dismissed by the learned ADJ on 27.08.2011, as such, second motion petition under Section 13-B(2) of the Act was not maintainable. Thereupon, parties moved a review application seeking review of the order dated 27th August, 2011. On 13.02.2012, parties also filed a joint application for withdrawal of petition under Section 13-B(2) of the Act. Both the aforesaid applications were dismissed vide impugned orders dated 18th February, 2012 and vide same order petition u/s 13-B(2) of the Act was also held to be not maintainable. The aforesaid impugned orders as well as order dated 27.08.2011 passed on the joint petition under Section 13-B(1) have been challenged in the present appeal.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that at the time of recording of joint statements of parties in first motion u/s 13-B(1) of the Act, original documents pertaining to the identity proof of both the parties i.e. rent deed, copy of passport of petitioner and passport of respondent no.2 were produced. Thereupon, photocopies of aforesaid documents were exhibited in the evidence of both the parties and originals were returned to the parties. It is submitted that the same is also recorded in the statement of parties. It is further contended that after waiting for six months, parties had filed second motion petition under 13-B(2) of the Act on 1st February, 2012. However, after filing of second motion, it was revealed that first motion had not been allowed, as such second motion was not maintainable. It is contended that the counsel of parties was under the bonafide belief that since the necessary formalities had been done, the joint petition under Section 13-B(1) of the Act had been allowed. It is contended that parties should not be allowed to suffer due to lapse on the part of their counsel. It is further contended that mistake is bonafide. There was no malafide on the part of the parties, as well as their counsel, as such, in the interest of justice, impugned orders be set aside.

7. Perusal of the record shows that joint statement u/s 13-B(1) of the Act was recorded on 1st August, 2011. The same is reproduced as under:-

“We the petitioners were married on 20.01.2007 at Amritsar in accordance with Hindu customary rites and ceremonies. Marriage was solemnized at Behl Ashiana, 3-A, Dasounda Singh Road, (Race Course Road Chowk) Lawrence Road, Amritsar. No child was born out of this wedlock. Due to differences in our temperaments and attitudes, we started living separately w.e.f. 11.04.2010. We have not resumed co-habitation thereafter. Now there is no possibility of our living together as husband and wife and despite attempts being made for reconciliation by family and friends we h