M G VIJI Vs. P T OMANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment in O. P. (H.M.A.) No. 54 of 1994 on the file of the Sub Judge's Court, Mavelikkara dismissing a petition filed under S.13(1)(ia) and (iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act'). The appellant herein was the petitioner before the court below and the counter petitioner is the respondent herein. The marriage between the appellant and the respondent was solemnized on 12-11-1992 and they lived together till July 1993. Thereafter the marriage life was not smooth and there were frequent squabbles between the husband and wife. This unpleasant situation in the family resulted in filing the present petition for dissolution of marriage. The husband alleged cruelty and unsoundness of mind against the wife. After the enquiry the court below came to the conclusion that the grounds alleged for dissolution had not been made out and therefore the petition was dismissed.

(2.) When this appeal came up for hearing today before us, the counsel on both sides uniformly submitted that the parties had already come to a settlement and they were ready to separate themselves by mutual consent. They therefore prayed that an order of divorce under S.13B of the Act may be passed. In order to have such a decree, both parties jointly filed C.M.P. No. 4602 of 1998. It is appropriate to extract the averments contained in the affidavit filed in support of the said joint petition.

(3.) The question before us is whether a decree can be passed by this court for dissolution of the marriage by a decree of divorce under S.13B of the Act. Under sub-s.(1) of S.13B both parties to a marriage are allowed to present a petition to the District Court for dissolution of the marriage on the ground that they have been living separately for a period of one year or more, that they have not been able to live together and that they have mutually agreed that the marriage should be dissolved. It is not disputed that the parties in this case have been living separately since July 1993. The circumstances in this case sufficiently reveal that the marriage has been irretrievably broken. Therefore the parties having realised their abhorrent and detestable family life came before this court to rescue them from perpetual agony with a compromise petition prepared on mutual assent. After a prolonged legal battle the parties themselves found their welfare not living in unison but in separation, permanently. We are abundantly satisfied that the marriage between the appellant and the respondent had been practically and emotionally dead. In such circumstances the life of the spouses shall not be allowed to put in perpetual agony and despair. When such circumstances are brought to the notice of this court, it is for us to find out a final solution on principles of justice and equity. When the parties themselves have found out their welfare in a mutually agreed manner, this court will not normally stand against it unless there are strong reasons. In this case we are inclined to allow the dissolution of marriage by mutual consent.