IMPORTANT POINT
Divorce--Mutual Consent--Presence of Parties--Presence of the parties is not mandatory in proceedings for divorce by mutual consent--In case the parties are represented through power of attorney holder satisfaction regarding genuineness of the pleadings and proceedings can still be recorded.

Rajesh Bindal, J.

1 This order will dispose of aforementioned two appeals. The same have been filed by the wife and husband aggrieved against the same order of the learned court below whereby the petition filed by them for grant of decree of divorce by way of mutual consent under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, "the Act"), was dismissed.

2 Briefly, the facts are that the marriage of the parties was solemnised on 24.2.2008 at Ludhiana according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. Due to temperamental differences, the parties could not pull on together. They lived together only for a period of 15 days after the marriage and since then they are living separate. All efforts to resettle remained futile and ultimately with the intervention of the elders and well wishers, it was decided that there was no reason to prolong the agony of the parties and they should respectfully part ways. In view of the decision, a petition under Section 13-B of the Act was fi led. On 21.3.2009 statement of both the parties was recorded. The case was thereafter adjourned for 23.9.2009 after the statutory period of six months. On subsequent adjourned date on account of non-appearance of the husband in person, the petition was dismissed. It is this order of the learned court below which is impugned in the present appeal.

3 Learned counsel for the parties submitted that all the disputes between the parties stood settled. After the marriage, the parties lived together only for a period of 15 days. As they could not settle in life and are at the young age, it was decided between them to get separated without levelling any allegations against each other, by way of a decree of divorce by mutual consent. The husband appeared when the petition was taken up for the first time and got his statement recorded and subsequently he could not appear for the reason that he had gone abroad for further studies and it was difficult for him to get leave. His father had appeared and filed his affidavit. The same should have been considered enough for passing the decree of divorce. However, still the learned court below dismissed the petition. It was prayed that the impugned order be set aside and a decree of divorce by mutual consent be passed.

4 Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paperbook. When the petition was filed, joint statement of both the parties was recorded on 21.3.2009, which is as under --

"We were married to each according to Hindu rites and ceremonies on 24.2.2008 at Ludhiana (Punjab). However, petitioner No. 1 is presently residing at House No. 813 Mohalla Dhobianwala, Sirsa. After our marriage, we lived together only for about 15 days. Thereafter, petitioner No. 1 came to her parental home on 10.3.2008 and since then is living with her parents at Sirsa. During the said period of 15 days alone, we could not adjust with each other due to our temperamental differences. It was only because of the said reason that petitioner No. 1 had left the matrimonial house. Since, 10.3.2008, the petitioner No. 1 is living separately from the petitioner No. 2 and we have no (sic) cohabited with each other as husband and wife thereafter. Our future will be safe only if we part our ways amicably by getting the marriage in question dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent. This has also been decided by our elders and other in the relations. There is no legal ground to deny us the relief claimed for. We have not filed the instant petition in collusion with each other. We may be granted the said relief. Anshu Rani Petitioner No. 1 Rohit Petitioner No. 2 Sd/- R. C. Dimri, Addl. District Judge, Sirsa 21.3.2009."

5 On the subsequent date the husband could not appear and his father appeared in court to represent him. He submitted that his son had gone abroad for further studies and it will not be possible for him to appear in court in person. However, he filed his affidavit stating that his son has no objection if the divorce is