^- IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Ojvrsion Bendl First Appeal (M) No. l & 2- / 2010 •* Appellant -^ Smt Someshwari aged about 39 years, Non applicant W/o Dileshwar Prasad Chandraker, R/o Village Sirsida, P O Matwari, Via. Anda, ^v >A \\v ^^r&^ f-^^^^ l.^)- Respondent Applicant Tahsil and Distt. Durg Versus Dileshwar Prasad, S/o Sitaram Chandraker, aged about 42 years, R/o Village Loharsi, Tahsil Patan, Distt. Durg at Present R/o Shanti Nagar, Bhilai Tahsil and Distt. Durg -V.13dJoF Tiie rfimi-y Cou/irs A^r P-E^WITII'SS^ APPEAL UNDER SECTION,28 OF HINDU MARRIAGE ACT . T^ ^s^^?" HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR F. A. (M) No. 162 of 2010 Appellant Smt. Someshwari Versus Respondent Dileshwar Prasad APPEAL UNDER SECTION 19 (1) OF THE FAMILY COURTS ACT. 1984 READ WITH SECTION 28 QF THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT DB: Hon'ble Shri I. M. Quddusi 8& Hon'ble Shri G. Minhajuddin, JJ Shri Anand Shukla, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Rajnish Baghel, Advocate for the respondent. JUDGMENT & ORDER ( passed on this 12th day of October, 2011 ) Per I, M. Quddusi, J. The instant appeal has been filed by the defendant/wife against the impugned judgment and decree dated 16.11.2010 passed by the Second Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg in Civil Suit No. 115-A/2010 (Dileshwar Prasad Vs. Smt. Someshwari), granting divorce under Section 13 (l)(ib) ofthe Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The brief facts of the case are that on 2.3.2007 the plaintiff/husband filed a suit which was registered as Civil Suit No. 115-A/2010 for granting a decree of divorce againfst the defendant/wife under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Their marriage was solemnized on 19.5.1986. It is ev.ident that prior to filing of this suit the plaintiff had filed a petition for divorce wherein the parties had entered into a compromise on 15.11.1996. The plaintiff made various allegations in the plaint and submitted, inter alia, that since May, 1997 the defendant/wife ^left her matrimonial home and started living in her parental house. At this stage learned counsel appearing for the parties as well as the appellant and respondent, who are present before this Court, have stated that they do not want divorce by any allegation and want divorce by •^r .!1\. %. ^:. v '-^ 7. 8. mutual consent. Therefore, the impugned judgment and decree may be set aside and a decree under Section 13 (1) (ib) of the Act, 1955 may be passed by mutual consent. They have filed a joint application dated 12.10.2010 signed by both the parties i. e. Dileshwar Prasad and Someshwari, mentioning the terms and conditions agreed by them. Learned counsel for the parties jointly pray that this appeal be also treated as petition for divorce by niutual consent. The appeal was filed on 13.12.2010 and therefore 18 months have not been elapsed. However, six months have been passed and therefore the appeal for setting aside the decree of divorce and converting the same in a petition for divorce by mutual consent can be allowed on the joint request of the parties. The parties ( Smt. Someshwari and Dileshwar Prasad) have been identified by their learned counsel (Shri Anand Shukla and Shri Rajnish Baghel). In view of the above we allow this appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and decree dated 16.11.2010 passed by the Court below and allow the application for converting the part of the appeal as a petition for divorce by mutual consent. Both the parties, who are present before us and are identified by their learned counsel, have also stated before this Court that both have signed on the application for divorce by mutual consent. In view of the above, the marriage is dissolved between the parties by a decree of divorce by mutual consent. It is directed that the application dated 12.10.2011 shall form part of the decree with the terms and conditions mentioned in the application. In view of the foregoing this appeal stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Sd/- LM.Quddusi Judge Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge Thakur