1 The appellant-wife is before this Court challenging the judgment and decree of the learned Court below whereby the petition filed by the appellant and her husband/respondent under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, "the Act") for grant of divorce by way of mutual consent was dismissed.

2 Briefly the facts are that the marriage of the appellant was solemnised with the respondent on 7-1-2007. Due to temperamental differences, the party could not pull on together. No child was born out of the wedlock. They are living separate since 8-4-2007. Immediately thereafter the husband went abroad and has not returned till date. The appellant also got registered FIR No. 216 dated 23-10-2008 against her husband and his family members under Sections 406/498-A, IPC at Police Station, Sector-31, Chandigarh. Thereafter, the matter was compromised between the parties on 3-1-2009. In terms of that both the parties agreed to dissolve the marriage by way of mutual consent. As permanent alimony, the appellant was to get Rs. 2,35,000/- from the respondent and the FIR got registered by the appellant, was to be withdrawn or got quashed by the appellant by getting her statement recorded.

3 In terms of the compromise arrived at between the parties, a divorce petition was filed by them jointly on 6-1-2009. The husband being abroad was represented by his father as attorney, whereas the appellant appeared in person. At the initial stage, the statement of the appellant was recorded and on behalf of the husband as attorney, his father got the statement recorded. Similar was the position on the second motion. The learned Court below dismissed the petition on 8-8-2009 opining that the husband having not appeared in person divorce by mutual consent cannot be granted. It is against this judgment and decree that the appellant- wife is before this Court.

4 Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that here is a case in which the appellant, who merely resided with the respondent for about three months after the marriage, has been left high and dry as the husband went abroad. Unless the divorce is granted, she cannot even remarry. Her life is being spoiled as at this age she resettle in life, however, if the time passes there may be problems. He further submitted that opinion expressed by the learned Court below to the extent that the parties are necessarily required to appear in person is totally erroneous. The attorney of the husband in the present case is none else than his father. Once the father of the husband is making the statement on his behalf, there was no question of disbelieving the same and not placing reliance thereon. All what the Court is required is to see that the marriage between the parties was solemnised and further that the averments made in the petition are correct and the consent of either of the parties was not obtained by way of threat or coercion or fraud. There is no pleading in this regard herein. This cannot even be alleged in the present case. Considering the fact that the appellant has apeared in person and on behalf of the husband, his father appeared as attorney and it is on account of the fact that husband is in abroad and is unable to come back even in near future, the petition for divorce by mutual consent deserved to be allowed. In support of his arguments, reliance was placed to Delhi High Court judgment in Neelima Chopra v. Anil Chopra, 1987 (1) HLR 187 and Andhra Pradesh High Court judgment in Padmakiran Rao (Mrs.) v. B. Venkate- ramana Rao, 1996 (2) HLR 271:(1996 AIHC 1717).

5 Learned counsel for the respondent also supported the plea raised by the appellant while submitting that the husband in the present case does not have any objection to his father appearing as attorney on his behalf. It has been agreed upon by him that he would be bound by all the actions of his father and the statement made by him in Court for getting the decree of divorce by way of mutual consent. He further submitted