A petition for divorce by mutual consent under Section 13-B(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 cannot be withdrawn unilaterally by one party. The consent of both parties is required for the withdrawal of such a petition.

Bhawani Singh, J —This appeal, by the husband, arises out of the Judgment of District Judge, Simla in HMA No. 2O-S/3 of 1988 decided on 31-3- 98V. By this decision, the petition jointly moved by the parties under section 13-B (1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (as amended) has been dismissed.

2. The facts, in brief, are that the appellant and the respondent were married, according to Hindu rites at Patiala on 15-7-1984 where after they remained at different places including Simla. However, they started living separately since the 15th day of July, 1987 and they say that they were living apart due to difference in mental attitude and nature with each other.

3. The parties mutually agreed to put an end to the matrimonial alliance and with this end in view, preferred a petition under section 3-B (1) of Hindu Marriage Act for divorce with mutual consent. The trial Court recorded the statements of the parties on oath and fixed the case for further proceedings on 23-2-1989, further the respondent moved an application on 23-2-1989 for the withdrawal of the petition. In this application the respondent stated that she consented for the filing of the petition owing to undue influence and threats exercised on her. This application was opposed by the appellant who contended, inter alia, that the petition for divorce by mutual consent was moved freely and without exercise of any kind of pressure or influence on the respondent. The parties agreed mutually to do so and the petition was accordingly filed. The District Judge, after hearing arguments in the matter, dismissed the petition as having been withdrawn by the respondent, This is how the Judgment has been challenged by the appellant by way of this appeal.

4. Shri D. N. Sharma, Counsel for the appellant contended that the impugned Judgment deserves to be set aside since the same is not only against the facts and evidence on record but also against law. It was submitted that it was a joint petition moved by the parties without any threat or pressure from anyone. They gave their statements in support of the same and the application for withdrawal of the petition by the respondent was as a result of pressure exercised on her by certain persons, however, same could not be permitted since the appellant was not a consenting party as the same was necessary for the withdrawal of the petition moved jointly by them. In order to support his submission strong reliance was placed on decision of case decided by me, namely, Parkash v. Sureshta Devi, FAO (MHA) No. 28/1989, decided on August 1, 1989 where this kind of proposition was directly in issue. In that case also a joint petition for divorce by mutual consent was moved by the parties but during the period of six months, i e« allowed by the Court in such like proceeding? before deciding the matter finally, the wife filed an application challenging the filing of the petition for divorce by mutual consent on the ground that she was not a consenting party for moving the petition at the initial stage since the consent was obtained under pressure and threat by the husband. It was found that this was not so and the petition moved jointly could not be withdrawn unilaterally without the consent of the husband. Further, the parties had given their statements in the Court on oath stating that there was no possibility of their remaining together and the marriage may be dissolved by a decree of divorce. While coming to the conclusion that this kind of petition could not be withdrawn unilaterally, assistance was sought from paras 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 of Single Bench decision of Delhi High Court reported in Smt. Chander Kama v. Hans Kumar and others, AIR 1989 Delhi 73 in place of the decision of Kerala High Court reported in K. I. Mohanan v. Smt. Jeejabai, AIR 1988 Kerala 28 propounding the contrary proposition.

5. In the present case also the petition was moved jointly by the parties. It has been signed by both of them. Endorsement on the petition also sho