The main legal point established in the judgment is the mandatory requirement for the Court to make efforts for settlement and reconciliation before passing a decree for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent.

M. Y. EQBAL, J. :- In this appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts, Act, 1984, the appellant-wife has challenged the judgment and decree dated 18-3-2006 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhanbad in Matrimonial Suit No. 2/2003 whereby he has ordered for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent.

2. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass :

The respondent-Satya Kumar Singh married with the appellant, Smt. Hina Singh on 27-4-2001 in accordance with the Hindu rites and customs. In 2003 the respondent-husband filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for a decree of restitution of conjugal right alleging, inter alia, that after marriage the appellant lived with him for about three weeks and, thereafter, she went to Kolkata. It was alleged by the respondent that the appellant had gone to Kolkata but she did not come back with him. On 26-10-2001 the appellant came to her matrimonial home and started threatening and torturing the entire family members of the respondent. On 10-12-2001, the father of the respondent along with his two nephews came to the residence of the respondent and took her to Kolkota. Thereafter, the respondent alleged to have made several attempts to take her back to her matrimonial home, but all efforts went in vain. Hence, the respondent filed the aforementioned suit for a decree of restitution of conjugal right.

3. On receipt of summon, the appellant appeared and filed application for time for filing written statement. On last date being 11-2-2005, the Principal Judge allowed time to the appellant for filing written statement by 18-3-2005. On 18-03-2005, the Principal Judge decreed the suit by passing order of dissolution of marriage on mutual consent. The said judgment and decree is the subject of the matter of this appeal.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant assailed the impugned judgment and order as being illegal and wholly without jurisdiction. Learned counsel submitted that two cases, one under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and another u/S. 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act are pending in the Family Court, Kolkata and interim maintenance was allowed in the said proceeding. Learned counsel further submitted that the appellant-wife neither filed any compromise petition nor gave consent for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent.

5. Admittedly, the respondent-husband filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1953 in the Court of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhanbad which was registered as Title Matrimonial Suit No. 2 of 2003. In the said application, the only relief sought for by the respondent-husband was for a decree of restitution of conjugal right. However, the Court below in the said suit, passed the impugned judgment/order for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce on mutual consent.

6. Before considering the correctness of the impugned judgment and order passed by the Court below, I would first like to discuss the relevant provision of Hindu Marriage Act which deals with the dissolution of marriage on mutual consent. Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act was introduced by Amendment Act of 1976 which reads as under :-

"13B. Divorce by mutual consent.- (1) 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, 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.

(2) On the motion of both the parties made not earlier than six months after the date of the presentation of the petition referred to in sub-section (1) and not latter than eighteen months after the said date, if the petition is not withdrawn in the meant