( 1 ) MS. Jyotiben D/o Madhukant Manilal - petitioner present in person. Mr. Jignesh J. Oza, respondent, present in person.

( 2 ) THIS revision application is directed by the opponent-petitioner against the order dated 24-2-1998 of the 2nd Extra Assistant Judge, Baroda below Ex. 66 in Hindu Marriage Petition No. 277/94. The petitioner-opponent filed an application Ex. 66 in which prayer has been made that the petition filed for dissolution of marriage by decree of divorce filed before one year as lapsed since the date of marriage be entertained.

( 3 ) UNDER the order impugned in this revision application, this application has been granted and the petitioner-opponent-wife felt aggrieved of the said order, filed this revision application before this court.

( 4 ) THE facts of the case, in brief, are that the marriage of the petitioner and respondent was solemnised on 20th February, 1994 at Godhra. It is the case of the respondent that after marriage, the petitioner-wife was not discharging her matrimonial obligations. She has not cooperatinh with the respondent-husband and further more she used to create problems for him. She was not happy at the matrimonial home and used to stay away from the husband and the matrimonial home. She never wanted to live with the respondent-husband and she used to tell him that she wanted divorce. In this factual matrix, the respondent-husband filed the petition under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and prayed for the decree of restitution of conjugal rights. After receipt of summons of the petition, the petitioner-wife put appearance in the court. However, subsequently it appears that the respondent-husband prayed for the amendment of the application and incorporated therein the prayer for dissolution of marriage by decree of divorce. This prayer appears to be made after lapse of one year from the date of marriage. The application Ex. 66 has been filed for grant of permission to maintain the same. It is not in dispute that the Hindu Marriage Petition No. 277/94 was submitted in the court by the respondent-husband on 30th November, 1994. However, in view of the subsequent development which has been taken place it is not necessary for this court to go any deep in the matter and to decide on the validity, legality and correctness of the order impugned in this revision application. The parties have settled their dispute and they filed the consent term in which prayer has been made for dissolution of their marriage by decree of divorce by mutual consent. This consent term in which this prayer has been incorporated has been filed before this Court by the parties. The parties are present in the court and the Court has ascertained from them whether they have decided for dissolution of their marriage by decree of divorce by mutual consent. They have accepted the consent terms and prayer made therein for dissolution of their marriage by decree of divorce by mutual consent. They have also settled the amount of permanent alimony i. e. of Rs. 1,25,000. 00 and that amount has been paid by demand draft to the petitioner-wife. She has accepted the demand draft and she has forgone her all claims in respect of permanent alimony etc. . The parties have stated before this court that they have arrived at the settlement voluntarily and with full knowledge and without any coercion or duress. They have made further statement that this settlement and decision taken for dissolution of their marriage by decree of divorce by mutual consent is in their interest.

( 5 ) IT is unfortunate that immediately after marriage the parties could not remain together. The marriage has been solemnized on 20th February, 1994 and they are living separately for last more than four years. Out of this wedlock there is not child. The petition for dissolution of marriage by decree of divorce is pending in the trial court since four years. The parties could have remained together at the matrimonial home for hardly few mon