NIRANJAN KUMAR Vs. VEENA RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NIRANJAN Kumar, appellant herein filed petition Under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for short 'the Act' against the respondent for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty. His petition was dismissed by judgment and decree dated October 24, 1992 and this is how the present appeal came to be filed. On January 12, 1993, the appeal was admitted for final hearing.

(2.) DURING the course of hearing of Civil Misc. 10423/c. II of 1994, learned counsel for the parties presented before me not only a compromise entered into between the parties, duly signed by them, but also a joint application purporting to be one under section 13-B of the Act again duly signed by the parties for granting a decree of divorce by mutual consent. lt was prayed therein that statutory period of six months as required under section 13b (2) of the Act be condoned having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case, especially the one that the petition Under Section 13 of the Act had been filed more than three years prior to the filing of this application. Statements of the appellant as also the respondent present in court were recorded separately. Niranjan Kumar, appellant stated that he had been living separately from his wife, respondent herein, for the last more than three years and during this period they have not lived together and that he has now settled the dispute in terms of compromise Exhibit D. I. He further stated that his petition Under Section 13 may be converted into a petition Under Section 13-B of the Act and marriage between the parties be dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent. It was also stated by him that all articles of dowry and Istri Dhan have been returned to the respondent wife, besides a sum of Rs. 30,000/- has also been paid to her on account of permanent alimony. He stated that petition Under Section 13-B of the Act is duly signed by him as also the respondent.

(3.) THE respondent-wife by making her statement accepted the statement of the appellant-husband as correct.