IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH JANUARY 2009 / 24TH POUSHA 1930 Mat.Appeal.No. 287 OF 2008() ---------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 18/01/2008 IN IA 2954/2006 IN OP.635/2005 OF FAMILY COURT,THRISSUR APPELLANT/RESPONDENT ----------------------------------- REJITH KUMAR, AGED 33 YEARS, S/O.K.P.GANGADHARAN NAIR, "GANGOTHRI", KRISHNAN NAIR ROAD, P.O.KARUVISSERI, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.MANJERI SUNDERRAJ SMT.SUSAN JACOB SRI.B.PREMNATH (E) SRI.MANJERI SUBIN SUNDER RAJ RESPONDENT: PETITIONER ------------------------- SEEMA MENON, AGED 27 YEARS, D/O.SETHUMADHAVAN AND CHATHANATH RADHAMANI, GURUVAYUR AMSOM AND DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. ADVS. M/S. K.RAMACHANDRAN & S.SREEDEV THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/01/2009, ALONG WITH MA NO. 295 OF 2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMAN & C.T.RAVI KUMAR, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = MAT. APPEAL NOS. 287 & 295 OF 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = DATED THIS, THE 14TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2009. J U D G M E N T Raman, J. Both these appeals are between the same parties and inter-related. In a divorce petition filed by the wife, the husband remained exparte and a decree for divorce was eventually granted. Subsequently, a petition to set aside the exparte order was filed along with a petition for condonation of the delay caused in filing the same. But the petition for condonation of delay was dismissed and resultantly, the petition for setting side the ex-parte decree was also dismissed. Hence two appeals are preferred. 2. During the pendency of the proceeding, both the parties and their parents appeared. The petition for divorce was filed by the wife alleging cruelty and impotency on the part of the husband. The wife agreed to withdraw such allegations and they filed a joint petition for divorce. However, at that time a settlement could not be reached and the matter was adjourned and in the meantime, attempts were made and the parties thus MAT.A. 287 & 295/2008 :2: settled the matter out of court and filed a compromise petition. As per the terms of the compromise, the parties have decided to sever their conjugal relationship by a decree for dissolution of marriage on the ground of mutual consent and pray that a decree may be granted on mutual consent after setting aside the decree now passed by the Family Court. 3. We have gone through the compromise petition. The same is filed under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act. The parties have been living apart eversince the filing of the petition before the Family Court and therefore, the statutory period before which a decree could not be granted has already been expired without any re-union. The court was also impressed from the interaction of the parties that a re-union between the parties is not possible. Thus, the matrimonial tie has broken irretrievably and a decree for dissolution of marriage under Section 13 B can be granted. 4. Accordingly, the decree passed by the court below is set aside and a decree on mutual consent under Section 13 B is granted. Since there are other terms regarding the monetary claims and since the compromise deals with the same and the parties themselves have entered a settlement regarding the monetary claims between themselves out of court, a decree as such need not be granted. But the factum of such a settlement is to be MAT.A. 287 & 295/2008 :3: recorded. Accordingly, the compromise petition will form part of this judgment. The marriage stands dissolved by granting a decree for divorce. P.R. RAMAN, (JUDGE) C.T.RAVIKUMAR, (JUDGE) knc/-