MADAN MOHAN PUNCHHI, J.

1. Two significant questions of law, mentioned hereafter, have been referred by S.S. Kang, J. for determination by a larger Bench and under orders of Hon ble the Chief Justice have been placed before us, for the purpose. They are :

(1) Whether an appeal under S.28 of the Hindu Marriage Act ("the Act" for short) is competent against a consent decree in the face of provisions of Sub-S. (3) of S.96 of the Civil P.C.; and

(2) Whether a Matrimonial Court can dissolve a marriage by a decree of divorce between two Hindus on the basis of a compromise entered into between the parties during the pendency of the divorce petition without following the procedure prescribed by S.13B(2) and without satisfying the requirements of S.23(1)(c) of the Act ?"

These have arisen in a narrow sphere.

2 The appellant in the present FAO is the wife and the respondent is her husband. The husband on 26th July, 1980, filed a petition for divorce under S.13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, the Act) on various grounds. During the pendency of the petition on 29th May, 1984, a compromise deed was placed before the Court trying the cause. According to the terms of the compr