The main legal point established in the judgment is that personal appearance of the parties seeking divorce by way of mutual consent is not mandatory and can be through their duly constituted attorneys. The court also emphasized the importance of recording satisfaction about the consent and the waiver of the statutory period for grant of divorce by mutual consent.

SANDEEP SHARMA, J.

1. By way of present appeal filed under S. 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter, ‘Act’), challenge has been laid to order dated 22.5.2018 passed by the learned District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala in HMA Case No. 09/III/2018, whereby joint petition having been filed on behalf of the appellant and respondent, under S. 13B(2) of the Act, for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce with mutual consent, came to be dismissed.

2. Briefly stated the facts, as emerge from the record are that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 14.10.2016 at Budhamal Castle, Palampur, Tehsil Palampur, District Kangra, H.P., as per Hindu rites and customs but they were not able to live together for long on account of certain differences and as such, they, of their own volition and without there being any undue pressure, filed a joint petition under S. 13B(2) of the Act, praying therein for dissolution of their marriage by way of decree of divorce with mutual consent. One of the parties i.e. appellant-husband, Himanshu Nagpal, who resides abroad, executed a Special Power of Attorney authorizing his father, Shri Surya Prakash Nagpal, to move a joint petition under S. 13B of the Act, alongwith his wife, Palak Nagpal before the learned Court below, however, the fact remains that the learned Court below rejected the petition vide impugned order dated 22.5.2018, on the ground of maintainability. Learned District Judge concluded that since the petition on behalf of appellant was signed by his father, being his attorney, same could not be accepted. In the aforesaid background, parties have approached this court by way of instant appeal, laying therein challenge to the aforesaid order passed by the learned District Judge, praying therein for dissolution of their marriage by way of decree of divorce with mutual consent, after setting aside the impugned order passed by the court below.

3. Before adverting to the factual matrix of the case, it may be noticed that on the last date of hearing i.e. 6.11.2018, respondent-Palak, who had come present with her father, categorically stated before this court that she has no objection in case prayer made in the petition is accepted and marriage inter se parties is ordered to be dissolved with mutual consent, however, she had stated that before passing a decree of divorce, amount agreed to be paid to her in terms of compromise, may be paid to her. On the last date of hearing, parties also placed on record, settlement deed, wherein appellant has agreed to pay a sum of Rs.8.00 Lakh as permanent alimony to his wife, Palak. Similarly, respondent also stated that she has received all the dowry articles as per agreed terms and she has no claim against the appellant and she shall withdraw all the cases lodged by her against the appellant and/or his family members.

4. Today, Ms. Palak (respondent), on oath, stated before this court that she has received a sum of Rs.8.00 Lakh as per agreed terms towards full and final settlement and now she has no claim against the appellant. She further stated that she shall be withdrawing all the case pending in various courts of law, against the appellant as well as his family members, within a period of one week. She categorically stated before this court that she has no objection in case prayer having been made in the instant appeal, which bears her signatures, is accepted and marriage inter se parties is ordered to be dissolved by way of decree of divorce with mutual consent. Her statement is taken on record. The settlement deed is also made part of the record.

5. Now, the question, which remains to be determined in the instant proceedings by this court is, whether petition under S. 13B(2) under the signatures of father of the appellant, being his attorney, is maintainable or not? Undisputedly, petition under S. 13B on behalf of the appellant has been signed by his father being his attorney, whereas, respondent has signed the petition herself.