IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Appeal Against Order No. 352 of 2010 Vikal Kulshreshtha S/o K.M. Kulshreshtha R/o KH 168, Kavi Nagar, Ghaziabad ……….Appellant Versus Smt. Ruchika, W/o Shri Vikal Kulshreshtha R/o 2/15, Ashirwad Enclave, Ballupur Dehradun, Uttarakhand …………Respondent Shri Ajay Veer Pundir, Advocate, present for the appellant. Coram: Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Hon'ble Nirmal Yadav, J. Oral: Hon'ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Delay condonation application no. 8392 of 2010, is allowed. Delay of 17 days in filing the appeal is condoned. 2. Heard. 3. This appeal is directed against judgment and order dated 12.08.2010, passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun, on application 57C moved in suit no. 393 of 2007, whereby said application 2 seeking to treat the divorce petition filed by the petitioner (appellant) as joint petition filed on behalf of the parties, is rejected. 4. Brief facts of the case are that appellant (husband)and the respondent (wife) were in litigation. The wife had filed a criminal case no. 5308 of 2007, against the appellant under section 498A, 323, 504, and 506 IPC, and one punishable under section ¾ of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, which was pending before Judicial Magistrate, (C.B.I) Dehradun. Challenging prosecution, appellant filed criminal miscellaneous application no. 426 of 2007, under section 482 Cr.P.C., before this Court which was allowed vide this Court's order dated 21.08.2007, on the ground that the parties to the matrimony have entered into compromise. The plea of the appellant is that after the criminal proceedings were quashed as per the terms of the compromise, husband and wife had to file the joint petition for divorce under section 13B of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. However, according to the appellant, wife did not agree to move such petition, consequently, the appellant filed a petition for divorce under section 13(1)(a) of the Act. During pendency of said petition an application 57C was moved by the appellant requesting the trial court to treat the petition under section 13B of the Act. The 2 trial court rejected the application on the ground that the petition under section 13(1)(a) of the Act, cannot be treated a joint petition unless the respondent agrees to it. 5. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, we find no illegality in the impugned order passed by the trial court. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed summarily with the observation that the trial court shall proceed with the trial of the divorce suit, as expeditiously as possible. (Stay application no. 8363 of 2010, also stands disposed of). (Nirmal Yadav, J.) (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) 29.09.2010 Parul