The central legal point established in the judgment is the granting of a decree of divorce by mutual consent under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act based on the parties' mutual agreement to dissolve the marriage.

Amarjeet Chaudhary, J.

1. Suresh Chand appellant filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act in the Court of District Judge, Patiala seeking divorce from the respondent on the ground of cruelty.

2. The respondent, on notice of petition having been issued to her, appeared and contested the petition. She denied all the material allegations of the petitioner and prayed for the dismissal of the petition.

3. Reconciliation efforts were also made by the trial Judge but did not succeed as a result of which the following three issues were framed :-

1. Whether the respondents has acted with cruelty after solemnization of the marriage as alleged? If so, to what effect ?

2. Whether the petition is not maintainable ? OPR.

3. Relief.

Issue No. 2 was decided in favour of the appellant and against the respondent. On issue No. 1, the finding of the trial Court is that the appellant has failed to prove his case of cruelty and consequently the petition was dismissed.

4. Feeling aggrieved against the judgment, the appellant has filed this appeal.

5. During the pendency of appeal, the appellant filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. for amendment of divorce petition filed in the Court of District Judge, Patiala. Mr. Agnihotri, counsel for the respondent expressed no objection if the amendment was allowed. Civil Miscellaneous Application was accordingly allowed and the amended divorce petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act was taken on the record.

6. The statements of parties were recorded. Suresh Chand appellant stated that he has filed a divorce petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act. There is no collusion between the parties. He was residing separately since September, 1992. The marriage has broken irretrievably and there was no possibility of living together. He has amicably settled the terms of divorce with his wife Kusam alias Sushma. The divorce petition has been signed by him and his wife. He further deposed that he will abide by the terms of the compromise. Kusam alias Sushma respondent admitted the statement of Suresh Chand appellant to be correct. She further stated that she received F.D.R. Nos.508174 and 862933 dated 13.8.1997 in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- each in favour of her children and F.D.R. No. 0534283 dated 13.8.1997 in her favour which was in the sum of Rs. One lac as permanent alimony. She further deposed that she may be granted divorce by mutual consent.

7. We have heard counsel for the parties and perused the paper book.

8. Suresh Chand appellant in his statement recorded today in the court has clearly deposed that there is no collusion between him and the respondent-wife and that he is residing separately since September 1992. He further deposed that there is no possibility of living together. Kusum respondent on the other hand has stated that she has received Fixed Deposit Receipt Nos. 508174 and 862983 dated 13.8.19887 in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- each in favour of her children and fixed Deposit Receipt No. 0534283, dated 13.8.1997 in the sum of Rs. one lac. in her favour as permanent alimony. She further stated that she be granted divorce by mutual consent.

9. From the statements of the parties, it is amply clear that the parties are living separately for a period of more than one year; that they have not been able to live together and that they have mutually agreed that the marriage should be dissolved. Accordingly, this petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act is accepted and the marriage between the parties is dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent. Parties left to bear their own costs.