(1.) The appellant would assail the impugned order passed by the family Court on 29.9.2015 dismissing the joint application moved by the parties for grant of mutual divorce under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act').
(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that even if the respondent wife was not present before the family Court on 29.9.2015 for according consent to the application for grant of divorce by mutual consent under Section 13-B of the Act, the trial Court should not have dismissed the matter at once but the matter should have been deferred awaiting appearance of the respondent. He would also submit that the wife's absence before the family Court should have been treated as her consent for mutual divorce and the application should have been allowed.
(3.) The ground urged by learned counsel for the appellant has no substance in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the matters of Smt. Sureshta Devi v. Om Prakash, (1991) 2 SCC 25 and Smruti Pahariya v. Sanjay Pahariya, (2009) 13 SCC 338.