JUDGMENT :

Achintya Malla Bujor Barua, J.

Heard Mr. B.D. Konwar, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. M. Zomuanpuii, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Ms. M. Bora, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. The petitioner-husband had instituted F.C.(Civil) 203/2013 under section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the Court of the learned Principal Judge, Family Court No. 1, Kamrup, Guwahati. The said proceeding resulted in the judgment dated 12.10.2018 by which the petition of the petitioner-husband for a dissolution of marriage stood dismissed.

3. Being aggrieved, Mat. App. No. 36/2019 has been instituted by the petitioner-husband. When the proceeding was conducted on 12.12.2019, it was recorded that the learned counsel for the respondent-wife Ms. M. Bora had stated that although the dispute between the parties was referred for a mediation, but no settlement could be arrived at. A further statement was made by Ms. M. Bora, learned counsel for the respondent-wife that although this is an appeal by the husband against an order for refusal of dissolution of marriage, but the respondent is agreeable to go for dissolution.

4. In the circumstance, it was submitted that what remains to be decided between the parties is for arriving at an appropriate permanent alimony that may be agreed upon. In the said order it was recorded that the respondent-wife claims for permanent alimony amounting to Rs. 50,000,00 plus one of the properties of the husband where she can continue to live with the child who is stated to be a son of six years of age.

5. Accordingly, an order was passed that on the next date, an affidavit shall be filed stating in detail regarding the properties involved. The matter remained as such, and when it was taken up on 2.12.2020, the said stand of the parties was reiterated. In the circumstance, by the order dated 2.12.2020 the learned Family Court was required to arrive at a conclusion as regards the permanent alimony that may be applicable between the parties.

6. Today when the matter is taken up, the said stand of the respondent-wife is reiterated that she is agreeable to go for dissolution of the marriage and a permanent alimony to be determined between the parties.

7. Mr. B.D. Konwar, learned senior counsel for the appellant also agrees to the proposition of the respondent-wife as regards dissolution of the marriage.

8. In the circumstance, we have to understand that it is a common stand of the appellant-husband as well that of the respondent-wife that they would like to go for divorce by mutual consent. Divorce by mutual consent is statutorily provided under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (‘Act of 1955’) which, inter alia, reads as extracted:—

13 B. Divorce by mutual consent. — Subject to the provisions of this Act a petition for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce may be presented to the district court by both the parties to a marriage together, whether such marriage was solemnized before or after the commencement of the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, 1976 (68 of 1976), on the ground that they have been living separately for a period of one year or more, that they have not been able to live together and that they have mutually agreed that the marriage should be dissolved.

9. A reading of the provision of 13 B(1) of the Act of 1955 provides that a dissolution for marriage by decree of divorce may be presented to the District Court by both the parties to a marriage together, whether such marriage was solemnized before or after the commencement of the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, 1976 (68 of 1976) on the ground that they have been living separately for a period of one year or more and that they have not been able to live together and further that they have mutually agreed that the marriage should be dissolved.

10. In other words, an application for dissolution of marriage under Section 13B of the Act of 1955 requires an adjudication and a satisfaction to be arrived at by the cour