I TN THE HIGH COURT OF ICARNA AIM CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 18 DAY OF NOVEMBER OIl ‘RE mi THE HON StE MR 3’ ‘STICE MOHAN ‘ IAI”TANAGY ‘[‘AR AND THE HON StE MR JUSTICE RAfl MAE IMATH M F A NP 21176/?Ol1(Mfl BETWE EN Mat’ente h M lijat Aqeo 30 ycar Or Pr’ t Sen RoNe ,haI q I ar ho Bauxite , Ii ol nn t ad Bclqain Pj 1’ C This MFA is filed 1.JNDER Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984,. against the ordE...r and decree dated 18JO2OiO passed in MC.No25O/2OO9 on the fUE. of the Presiding Officer, Family: Court, Belgaum, dismissing the petition filed under Section :.. 3B of Hindu F1:arriage . Act. This MFA coming on for hearing, this day MOHAN SHANTANAGOUDAR, J, delivered the following: JUDGMENT Questi.oning the orer dated t8JO2O1O, passed by the Family Court, Belgaum in MCNo25O/2OO9, this appeal is filed. The appellants herein had jointly filed petition under Section 1 3B of the Hindu Marriage Act, seeking dissolution of marriage by mutual consent. The same is rejected on the ground that the petitioners therein (appellants herein) were not living separately for -3- a period of one year prior to presentation of petition for divorce. Both the parties have filed this appeal jointly. 2. The appellants are before the Court. They submit jointly that it is not possible for them to live amicably and they have decided to live apart. It is brought to the notice of the Court by Sri Jagadish Patil, learned counsel appearing for the appellants that both the parties have decided to remarry with different persons and that even engagements have taken place. According to him, they are waiting for orders of this Court for getting remarried. 3. We find that the divorce petition was filed on 16.10.2009, whereas marriage of the couple was performed on 21.4.2008. Thus, it is clear that the petition was presented after one year of the marriage. However, in one stray sentence in the affidavit, it was mentioned that they lived together for a period of one 4 year The stray sentence should not have been given much weightage by the Court belov while oming to the conclusion particularly hiving rcqa d tc the specifi ase of the parties that they have been li ing apart for more than one year Even before this Court the appellants have submitted that they have been living apart for more than one year 4. We are convinced that the parties are not willing to live together even if some more time i granted to them for compromise Both the parties ire young md they want to remarry with other persons Since the parties want to ettle n their lift a at y p mt time ie pass the fo ovi g orde C C a d S -5- one would claim anything from the other either in the form of cash or in the form of kind. Appeal is allowed accordingly. Sd!... JUDGE Sal JUDGE .