FAO No. M-209 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No. M-209 of 2008 Date of decision: September 05, 2008 Satnam Singh …..APPELLANT Versus Mandeep Kaur …..RESPONDENT CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE T.P.S.MANN PRESENT: Mr Harkesh Manuja, Advocate for the appellant. Mr Kewal Singh, Advocate for the respondent. T.P.S.MANN, J. The parties had earlier filed a joint petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for dissolution of their marriage by a decree of divorce by mutual consent. On 3.1.2008, the parties made their respective statements before learned lower Court. The matter was adjourned to 31.7.2008. However, by that time, there was change of heart of the respondent-wife and she made statement that she did not want divorce from her husband and, instead, wanted to live with him and the daughter. In fact, she specifically withdrew her previous statement made on 3.1.2008. Under these circumstances, the petition for divorce by mutual consent was dismissed by learned lower Court on 31.7.2008. The present appeal was filed by Satnam Singh-husband on the ground that after passing of the aforementioned order by the learned lower Court, the parties have again entered into a compromise, under which they have decided to part their ways. The appellant has agreed to pay a sum of Rs.ten lac to the respondent-wife as permanent alimony, FAO No. M-209 of 2008 -2- besides returning her gold ornaments. It is also agreed between the parties that their child, namely, Mannat shall remain with the appellant. Copy of the compromise deed dated 25.8.2008, arrived at between the parties has been placed on record. Both the parties have confirmed the same, besides signing it. The same is, accordingly, marked as 'A'. Notice of motion was issued and learned counsel representing the respondent accepted the notice in the Court. The matter was adjourned for today and the parties were directed to be present in person. Today separate statements of the parties have been recorded. Both of them have stated in their respective statements about the compromise, having been effected between them, subsequent to the decision arrived at by learned lower Court. The appellant has paid a sum of Rs.ten lacs to the respondent wife by way of three demand drafts. He has also returned her entire gold ornaments. The parties have further agreed that they would withdraw all the civil and criminal cases filed or pending against each other. The respondent has also stated in unequivocal terms that she has received the amount of Rs.ten lacs by way of three demand drafts and from now onwards she would not make any demand from the appellant. She has also agreed that their daughter Mannat shall stay with the appellant in future. Though it was for the parties to make their respective statements before learned lower Court in their joint petition filed under Section 13-B of the Act and obtain a decree for dissolution of their marriage, but it was the respondent, who later on retracted from her stand and made a statement that she wanted to live with appellant husband and daughter Mannat. However, she has now again informed FAO No. M-209 of 2008 -3- this Court by making statement to the effect that she has decided to part company from appellant and the daughter. She has received a sum of Rs.ten lacs by way of full and final settlement of her claim regarding permanent alimony. She has also received entire gold ornaments given to her in marriage. Almost under identical circumstances, this Court entertained the appeal of the married couple and granted them decree of divorce under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, after the wife once again expressed her willingness before this Court to seek dissolution of her marriage. Reference in this regard may be made to Makhan Singh v. Baljinder Kaur, 1996 (1) Recent Revenue Reports 666. Though a waiting period of six months is required to be followed before the petition under Section 13-B of the Act filed by the parties is finally accepted, yet in view of the fact that the matter remained pending before the learned lower Court where it was adjourned for a period of six months after recording of the first statements of the parties, I find that no useful purpose would be served by delaying the final disposal of the appeal. The mandatory waiting period of six months is, accordingly, waived off. In view of the above, the impugned order passed by learned District Judge, Chandigarh dated 31.7.2008 is set aside and the joint petition under Section 13-B of the Act is allowed. The marriage of the parties is dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent. Compromise deed mark A shall be part of the decree. September 05, 2008 (T.P.S.MANN) Pds. JUDGE