K.T. Sankaran, J.

1. The question of law involved in these appeals is whether it is necessary to pass a decree nisi under Section 16 of the Divorce Act, 1869 (Act IV of 1869), where a joint application is filed by the husband and wife under Section 10A of the Divorce Act for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent, in a pending appeal against the decree passed by the District Court.

2. The respondent (wife) filed O.P.(Div.) No.1064 of 2008 on the file of the Family Court, Alappuzha against the appellant (husband) for declaring their marriage to be null and void and in the alternative for a decree of divorce. The Family Court dismissed the prayer for declaration of nullity of marriage. However, the Family Court granted a decree of divorce and declared that the marriage between the parties will stand dissolved with effect from the date of decree. Challenging the decree passed by the Family Court, the husband filed Mat. Appeal No.453 of 2011. The wife filed Cross Objection No.49 of 2011 in Mat. Appeal No.453 of 2011 challenging that part of the decree of the Family Court by which the Family Court refused to declare the marriage as null and void.

3. The wife filed O.P.No.1065 of 2008 before the Family Court, Alappuzha against her husband and father-in-law for recovery of money given to the respondents at the time of marriage and value of gold ornaments which were allegedly appropriated by the respondents therein. The Family Court allowed O.P.No.1065 of 2008 in part and granted a decree for recovery of Rupees Ten lakhs from the respondents in the Original Petition. The claim for value of gold ornaments was dismissed. Challenging the judgment and decree of the Family Court in O.P.No.1065 of 2008, the respondents therein filed Mat. Appeal No.454 of 2011.

4. The parties entered into a compromise in the mediation process. As per the compromise, the husband agreed to pay a sum of `10,75,000/-to the wife in full and final settlement of the decree in O.P.No.1065 of 2008. It is stated in the Memorandum of Compromise that the parties have been living separately for more than three years and the marriage has been irretrievably broken down. The parties agreed to dissolve the marriage by mutual consent and they agreed to file a joint petition under Section 10A of the Divorce Act before the High Court in the pending appeal. Accordingly, the husband and wife filed a joint petition dated 2.11.2011 under Section 10A of the Divorce Act. In the joint petition filed under Section 10A of the Divorce Act, it was specifically stated that there was no collusion between the parties and that the petition was filed on free will of the parties. A Division Bench of this Court, as per the order dated 22.11.2011, directed to post the cases on 25.5.2012, that is, after a period of six months. When the appeals came up for hearing on 25.5.2012, the parties were present. They stated that they stand by the compromise and the joint petition. They stated that they have complied with all the terms and conditions of the compromise.

5. When the appeals came up for hearing, a question arose as to whether a decree for dissolution of marriage could be passed straight away or whether it is necessary to pass a decree nisi as provided under Section 16 of the Divorce Act. That question was argued in detail by the counsel.

6. Before the amendment by the Indian Divorce (Amendment) Act 2001 (Act 51 of 2001), the title of the Act was "The Indian Divorce Act". The word "Indian" was omitted by the Amendment Act 51 of 2001. By the Amendment Act 51 of 2001, drastic amendments were made to the Indian Divorce Act. The amendments were made on the basis of the recommendations of the Law Commission of India. The Law Commission suggested that amendments were required to the Act in order to remove the discrimination against women and gender inequality. Section 10A was inserted by the Amendment Act 51 of 2001. Before the amendment, a petition for dissolution of marriage under S