1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO. 26 OF 2009 Sow. Sanghratna w/o. Gopikishan Jadhav, Age 34 years, Occupation Household, r/o. Matoshri Building, Housing Society, Plot No.35, Nandanvan Colony, Aurangabad. .. (Appellant_ Original petitioner. Versus Shri Gopikishan s/o. Wamanrao Jadhav, Age 37 years, Occ. Service in Dwarkadas Mantri Bank, Branch At Rokadiya Hanuman Colony, Aurangabad, resident of 5/25 Anand Nagar, Kotla Colony, Aurangabad. .. Respondent. --- Mr. N.K. Kakade, Advocate for the appellant Mr. N.T. Tribhuwan, Advocate for the respondent. CORAM : A.P. DESHPANDE & N.D. DESHPANDE,JJ. DATE : 12TH MARCH, 2010. PER COURT :- 2 1] The present appellant is the wife, whereas, the respondent is the husband. The parties to the appeal performed th marriage on 11/2/2005. For initial few days, parties lived happily. However, thereafter differences arose and various proceedings were initiated by one of the parties against the other. The wife filed criminal proceedings under Section 498-A of IPC, Maintenance Petition No. E-364/2005, so also, the marriage petition seeking dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce , on the ground of cruelty and desertion against the respondent/husband. . The respondent had filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights. The petition filed by the respondent for restitution of conjugal rights came to be dismissed and aggrieved thereby, he has filed a writ petition in this court, which is pending. 2] The marriage petition for divorce filed by the present appellant having been dismissed by the Family Court, this Family Court Appeal has been filed. 3] No issues are born out of the marital wedlock. The wife is in service as a Junior Lecturer and is gainfully employed. 3 4] On the last date of hearing, it was realized that the marriage has been irretrievably broken down and the parties were also fed up with the litigation before different forums. In that view of the matter, we had referred both the parties for mediation to an Advocate empaneled as a Mediator. The parties during the process of mediation, with the intervention of the mediator, have succeeded in resolving the dispute in its entirety. 5] Perusal of the report of the Mediator reveals that there were 3 meetings between the parties before the Mediator and after discussing all the issues, they have ironed out the differences by agreeing to have divorce by mutual consent. The parties to the appeal also filed an undertaking before the Mediator that they will withdraw all the civil and criminal cases pending against each other, within 15 days from the date of the order by this court, in tune with the compromise petition , which is filed in this appeal, duly signed by the parties and their Advocates. 6] Perusal of the terms of compromise reveal that all the disputes have been fully and finally settled. The compromise petition is duly sworn by the parties. The parties are also present 4 before this court. We have read out the material terms contained in the compromise to the parties and they admit the terms and conditions contained in the compromise to be true. 7] The memo of appeal has been amended pursuant to the order passed by this court, dated 11th March, 2010 considering the oral request made by the counsel. By the amendment, the appellant is seeking a decree of dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce. In the above factual background, we have no iota of doubt that granting divorce to the parties by mutual consent would be in the interest of both the parties. 8] Perusal of Section 13-B, reveals that the following requirements need to be satisfied for grant of decree of divorce by mutual consent. (i) There must be a petition jointly made by both the parties to the marriage; (ii) That the parties need to live separately for a period of one year or more at the time of presentation of the petition; (iii) That they have not been able to live together; 5 (iv) That, they have mutually agreed that the marriage should be dissolved. All the material ingredients of Section 13-B are satisfied in the present case. 9] According to the learned advocates for respective parties,the amendment to the memo of appeal seeking divorce by mutual consent under section 13-B and the same being allowed, would relate back to the date of presentation of the petition and as , the appeal is a continuation of the original proceedings, the requirement of six months also stands satisfied. In that view of the matter, we proceed to grant divorce to the parties, by mutual consent, by passing the following order :- “(i) The marriage of the appellant and the respondent stands dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent, in terms of the compromise petition jointly filed by the parties to the appeal. The judgment and decree passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Aurangabad, dated 11/8/2009, in Petition No. 390 of 2007, is quashed and set aside; 6 (ii)The appeal stands disposed of in above terms, with no orders as to costs. (iii) In all fairness, the learned counsel for the respondent makes a statement that the respondent will pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- to the mediator. We accept the statement, payment to be made within a week from today.” [N.D. DESHPANDE,J.] [A.P. DESHPANDE.J.] Grt/-