IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 17TH JUNE 2008 / 27TH JYAISHTA 1930 MFA.No. 73 of 2001(B) --------------------- OP.109/1998 of SUB COURT, OTTAPPALAM .................... APPELLANT: ----------- MURALEEDHARAN, S/O.MANI NAIR, SREERAM NILAYAM, ALANGAD AMSOM AND DESOM IN OTTAPALAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH RESPONDENTS: ------------- M/S.PANICKER & PANICKER ADVOCATES, CHITTOOR ROAD, ERNAKULAM-682 035. BY ADV. SMT.PREETHY KARUNAKARAN SRI.R.RAJESH KORMATH SRI.ANISH S.AMBADY SMT.BIJIMOL JOSE THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.Raman & T.R. Ramachandran Nair, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - M.F.A.No.73 of 2001 - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 17th day of June, 2008. JUDGMENT Raman, J. The appellant is the petitioner in O.P.No.109/1998 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Ottappalam, which is a petition by the husband seeking divorce. The respondent is the respondent in this appeal. The allegation in the petition was that the appellant married the respondent on 19.1.1994 according to customary rites and ceremonies. Though they were living happily, later the attitude of the respondent towards the petitioner changed and she stopped looking after him properly. A child was born in the wedlock. It is alleged that the respondent humiliated him and had treated him with cruelty. This was denied by the respondent in the counter affidavit filed. Eventually, the court below dismissed the petition against which this appeal is filed. 2. During the pendency of this appeal, the parties agreed for a divorce and had filed an application as I.A.No.1416/2008 invoking the benefit of Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act, signed by both sides and their counsel. It is admitted that the marriage between the petitioner MFA 73/2001 -2- and the respondent solemnised on 19.1.1994 as per customary rites and ceremonies and that a child by name Reshma was born on 12.1.1995. It is also admitted that subsequent to the marriage difference of opinion crept in and the situation became worse day by day. As a result, they could not live together as husband and wife. Though the first petitioner preferred a petition for divorce, it was opposed. It is also stated that the parties are living separately since 1997 and the position continues even today. There is no collusion between the parties and it is in the best interest of the parties that the marriage be dissolved. An amount of Rs.1,25,000/- was paid by the appellant/husband by way of permanent alimony by a Demand Draft, the receipt of which is acknowledged in the petition itself. 3. Since both sides agree that since 1997 they are living separately and there was also a petition for divorce and the parties agree that they have not lived together at any point of time since the filing of the petition before the court below or the filing of the appeal before this court, the statutory period of six months is dispensed with for accepting the petition and to pass orders thereon. In view of the joint petition filed by the parties which is signed by MFA 73/2001 -3- both counsel and for the reasons already stated above, this petition is allowed and a decree for divorce is granted. ( P.R.Raman, Judge.) (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/ MFA 73/2001 -4- P.R.Raman & T.R. Ramachandran Nair, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - M.F.A.No.73 of 2001 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - JUDGMENT 17th June, 2008.