K.S. LODHA, J.— This is a wifes appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge, Sriganganagar dated 13.8.84 dissolving the marriage between her and her husband by mutual consent.

2. The facts giving rise to this appeal may be briefly stated here. The parties are Hindus by caste and their marriage had taken place on 16.2.75 at Suratgarh. They lived together till 15.10.79 and a daughter was born out of this wed-lock on 20.5 78. The husband Shri Virendra Kumar filed an application u/s 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter called the Act) for dissolution of the marriage on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. The application was contested by the wife. The fact of the marriage and the birth of the daughter were admitted but the facts of cruelly and desertion were denied. On the other hand, cruelty was alleged on the part of the husband and his parents. Issues on the pleadings of the parties were framed on 22.3.84. However, before this, an effort was made for reconciliation between the parties on 2.9.83 but it was found that the husband was not willing to take the wife back.

3. While the matter was pending for the petitioners evidence, one more issue was added on 20.7.84 and the case was fixed for the petitioners evidence on 9.1184. However, it appears that before that date, the parties appeared before the learned District Judge on 13.8.84 and moved a joint application stating that the parties were desirous of getting a decree for dissolution of the marriage by mutual consent and, therefore, the matter may be taken up on that very day. Another application purporting to be u/s 13-B of the Act was also jointly filed by the parties on that day and it was stated therein that the parties had been living separate since 15.10 79 and it has not been possible for them to live together despite the efforts made by their friends and relations in this respect and. therefore, it was in the interest of both of them to obtain a decree for dissolution of the marriage so that each one of them may be able to get another match and live a happy life. It was further alleged that the husband had returned all the ornaments and cash belonging to the wife back to her and, therefore, the application u/s 27 of the Act filed earlier by her had become infructuous and that in future, the wife will not be entitled to any maintenance. It was also mentioned that the daughter Amandeep had been handed over by the wife to the husband who would now look after her and that the wife will not be entitled to any maintenance for the daughter and that she would withdraw the application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. which had earlier been filed by her. In the last, it was prayed that the application earlier filed by the husband may be deemed to be a join application of the parties with their mutual consent and a decree for dissolution of the marriage may be passed u/s 13-B of the Act.

4. On this application being filed, the learned Distt. Judge again made an effort to bring about the reconciliation between the parties but without success & they insisted that the application of the husband may be treated as a joint application with mutual consent for the grant of a decree for divorce and the application filed on 13.8.84 may be treated as a motion under sub-s. (2) of s. 13-B of the Act and a decree for divorce may be passed. Looking to these circumstances, the learned District Judge accepted their prayer and granted a decree for dissolution of the marriage holding that he was satisfied that the application was voluntarily filed by the parties with their mutual consent, that there was no connivance, between them, that neither of the parties was taking any advantage of its wrong nor there was any undue delay in the filing of the application. He also directed that the daughter Amandeep will stay with the petitioner and the wife will not be entitled to any maintenance for herself or for her daughter and that she would withdraw the application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. already filed

Click Here to Read the rest of this document