The doctrine of relation back in the context of amendment of pleadings is not of universal application, and in appropriate cases, the court can direct that the amendment shall not relate back to the date of the suit.

S.S. Saron, J.

The statements of the parties at the second motion have been recorded in Court today. Both the parties have stated that they want divorce by mutual consent.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the respective parties submit that in view of the joint petition filed by the parties and their statements made at both the motions, the joint petition be accepted and the marriage between the parties be dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent.

3. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the matter.

4. The marriage between the parties was solemnized at Pallavi Hotel, Panchkula according to Hindu rites and ceremonies on 10.02.2008. They initially enjoyed their married life and the marriage was consummated. After marriage, the parties went to Lucknow and took a house at Gomtinagar on rent in the first week of March, 2008. Thereafter, they shifted to another house and then they shifted to New Delhi on 1.08.2008 where they lived upto 30.06.2009. Thereafter they lived at Panchkula till 05.12.2009. On account of matrimonial disputes between the parties, Ashim Sethi (petitioner No. 1) on 13.01.2010 filed a petition (Regular Suit No. 90 of 2010) under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 ('Act'- for short) before the Principal Judge, Family Court at Lucknow. Meena Sethi (petitioner No. 2) on receipt of notice in the said petition, filed an application for transfer of the petition in the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The petition filed by petitioner No. 1 was transferred to the learned District Judge, Panchkula where it was registered as HMA No. 01. The learned Additional District Judge, Panchkula vide judgment and decree dated 28.05.2013 dismissed the petition of petitioner No. 1. Aggrieved against the same, petitioner No. 1 filed an appeal (FAO No. M-273 of 2013) before this Court.

5. Notice of motion was issued by this Court on 26.08.2013. Mr. Vivek Suri, Advocate for petitioner No. 2 who was on caveat accepted notice. Both the parties were open to an amicable settlement. It was stated that earlier mediation proceedings were carried out but had remained unsuccessful. The case was adjourned to 13.09.2013. The parties were asked to be present on the said date.

6. On 13.09.2013, the parties amicably settled their dispute. Accordingly, CM No. 19356-CII of 2013 was filed by petitioner No. 1 in terms of Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of the petition initially filed by him under Section 13 of the Act to that of a joint petition under Section 13-B of the Act. The said CM was allowed as prayed for on 13.09.2013. The statements of the parties at the first motion were also recorded on 13.09.2013. Both the parties stated that they want divorce by mutual consent. It was inter alia stated that there were differences between the parties and they were living separately since December, 2009. They were not able to pull along together. They had decided to dissolve their marriage by mutual consent. Ashim Sethi (petitioner No. 1), it was agreed shall pay an amount of Rs. 27 lacs in all to petitioner No. 2 towards past, present and future maintenance. Petitioner No. 1 tendered Rs. 5 lacs by cheque in favour of petitioner No. 2 drawn on State Bank of India, Panjab University, Chandigarh. All cases filed by either of the parties against the other, it was agreed, shall be withdrawn. FIR that had been lodged by petitioner No. 2 against petitioner No. 1, it was agreed, shall be got quashed. It was also agreed that FIR No. 945 dated 08.12.2009 registered at Police Station Hazratganj, District Lucknow for the offence under Section 380 IPC by petitioner No. 1 against petitioner No. 2, which was outcome of the matrimonial dispute shall be got quashed. Learned counsel for the parties state that the said FIR has since been quashed by the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court in case No. 2490 of 2011 decided on 12.04.2013. FIR No. 39 dated 29.01.2010 registered at Police Station, S