IN THE HIGH CQURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR .^ ^.___ ^___^^ ''>'' FIRST APPEAL*NO. 2_a- OF2011r y A^PELLANT ^ RESPONDENT ?mt. Romi Bansal W/o Kishan Kumar Bansal D/o Kishori Lal Agrawal,- aged about 24 years, R/o Vij^ Marg, Sangam Chowk Godari GaU, Ambikapur, P.S. 85 Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja (CG). (APPLICANT) VERSUS -Kishan Kumar Bansal S/o Ramanand Bansal, aged 27 years, occupation- business, R/o Behind Agreha Gali Thana, Korba, P.3., Tahsil and District Korba (CG). ( NON-APPLICANT) MEMORAN^Ui»IOF FIRST APPEAL UNDER SECTION 19 (U Oji' FAMILY COURTS ACT, 1984 READWITH SECTION 28 OF HINDU MARmAGE ACT p Appallant Applicont HIGH COURT OF CHHATTIS6ARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH: HON'BLE MR. I.M.QU&DUSI & HON'BLE MR. 6. MINHAJU&DIN. JJ. F.A.(M). No.22/2011 Smt. Romi Bansal Vs ResBpndent Non-applicant Kishan Kumar Bansal Present: AAr. Arvmd Sinha, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Ramakcuit Pandey, Adyocate for the respondent. The parties are also present in person. ORDER (OraD (6th September. 2011) I.M. Quddusi. J; 1. Heard. 2. The oppellant had filed this misceltaneous appeal against the Judgment dated 01.02.2011 passed in Civil Suit No.62A/2010 whereby the learned Judge, Family Court, Ambikapur has passed the order of judicial separation of the appellant <ind the respondent instead of granting decree of divorce, as proyed by the appellant herein. 3. Facts of the-case, in brief, are that marria9e between the appellant and the respondent was solemnized on 06.07.2008 at Korba (CG) and out of -their wedlock, there is a fennale child. On 2.11.2010 the-appellant and the respondent have executed a document before the Notary Public to the effect that they have decided to live separately. Thereafter, the appellant had filed cn application before the Family Court below under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1869 seeking_dissolution of marriage solemnized between the appellant and'the respondent on the ground that the appeilant and the resporident are living separately since long. The Court below vide impu9ned order instead of granting decree of divorce hos ordered for judicial separation of the parties from 01.02.2010. Therefore, the appellant has preferred the instant appeal. ^ / ^ "a':v\ '^^. ^ s/ 4. The appellant os well as the respondent, who are present in person,~have subnnitted that they had been livin9 separately since long and had not been able to liye together <md as such, there is no chomce of reconciliation between them. Therefore, the niarriage performed between them may be dissolved. They have also submitted that they have jointly filed cn application under Section 13 (b) of the Act of 1869 for gront of mutual divorce. 5. In view of the above submissions and considering the fact that there are no chonces of amicable settlement between the parties, we are of the opinion that, a decree of divorce be granted"in favour of the parties by allowing the application filed for divorce by mutualconsent. 6. Accordingly, with a view to do complete justice to parties, we set aside the judgmentjdated 01.02.2010 passed by the court below in Civil Suit No.62- A/2010 and ailow the cpplication under Section 13 (b) of the Act of 1869 and held that the marriage solemnized between the parties on 06.07.2008 according to Hindu rites & customs shall stand dissolved from the date of this order. The Additional Registrar (Judl.) is directed to draw a decree of divorce accordingly. 7. Certified copy as per rules. Sdf- I.M-Quddusi Judge Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge Roshap