Divorce by mutual consent-Wife resiled from her undertaking-Wife on reconsideration find it more beneficial to continue with the marriage-Decree of divorce set aside.

Ranjit Singh, J.

1. Alleging that she was tricked by her husband, Ranjna has filed this first appeal impugning the decree of divorce granted by Addl.District Judge, Sonepat on the ground of mutual consent.

2. The facts, as noticeable from the brief order ending this matrimonial alliance, are that a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act was filed for dissolving the marriage between the appellant and her husband Anil Kumar on the ground of mutual consent on 30.7.2004. On that very day, the statements of the husband and wife were recorded to the effect that due to their different temperaments, they could not adjust as husband and wife and then they accordingly had decided to dissolve their marriage. On an application filed, the case was again taken up on 21.8.2004 when this was put up before a Lok Adalat. The statements of parties were recorded on this date. It is seen from the statements that on request of both the parties, the file was put up before Lok Adalat where they again effected compromise. It is noticed that both the husband and wife made a statement that they were not able to adjust themselves as husband and wife due to different temperaments and there was no scope for their re-union. It was accordingly stated by them that no purpose shall be served for further waiting. They had also disclosed that they had settled everything regarding giving and taking and in regard to custody of one child which was to remain with the husband, who was responsible to maintain her. Accordingly, it was stated before the President Lok Adalat that the waiting period be exempted and the marriage be dissolved by mutual consent. Their photographs were also taken on record. Same day, the case was taken up by Shri J.S. Jangra, Addl.District Judge, Sonepat. The court while referring to the case of Navjot Kaur v. Balwinder Singh 2003(1) Civil Court Cases 204 condoned the waiting period and allowed the petition and dissolved the marriage by way of mutual consent leaving the parties to bear their own costs. This order is now impugned by the wife by way of above-noted first appeal.

3. The marriage between the husband and wife was solemnised on 19.10.2001. A female child was born out of this wedlock on 20.10.2002. The petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act came to be filed on 30.7.2004 as already noticed and was fixed for 2.2.2005. This divorce petition, however, was taken up for hearing on 21.8.2004 by Lok Adalat on an application dated 19.8.2004 filed by the couple. On same day, as already noticed, the decree of divorce was granted on ground of mutual consent by waiving the waiting period as laid down in the Statute.

4. In the instant appeal filed, the appellant has disclosed that she lost her father when she was 2/3 years old. Her mother is a Class-IV employee and she was married by her maternal uncle. The appellant claims that she has been exploited by her husband in getting this divorce on the ground of mutual consent. She further claims that she was kept in the house till date of passing of the decree and thereafter the respondent turned her out from the house after snatching her daughter. This left her bewildered and only then she realised that she has been duped and defrauded in getting divorce. Relying upon the contents of Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, it is alleged that conditions contained therein are essential to be fulfilled for dissolution of marriage under the Section and these are as follows:

i) The parties are living separately for over one year;

ii) They have not been able to live together;

iii) They have mutually agreed for dissolution;

iv) The consent of the parties is free.

5. It is further alleged that the appellant was made to sign on blank papers and thereafter divorce petition on the ground of mutual consent was drafted. These blank signed papers were also used for moving an application before Lok Adalat. Appellant has further brought out that she was brought to the court premise