IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 4726 of 2009. [O&M] Date of Decision: 5th October, 2009. Vineet Dutta Petitioner through Ms. Monika Jalota, Advocate Versus Pooja Dutta Respondent through Mr. B.S.Dhillon, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL) This Revision petition is directed against the order dated 7.8.2009 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh whereby a joint petition for the grant of decree of divorce by mutual consent presented by the petitioner - husband along with the respondent – wife has been dismissed for non-compliance of the statutory requirements of Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The facts as averred are that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 17.04.2004 at Madhuban, District Karnal as per the Hindu Rites and Ceremonies. No child has born out of the wedlock. It appears that the marriage went into rough weather from the very inception due to temperamental differences and both the petitioner and the respondent could not pull on together. In their respective statements made on oath today, they have deposed that they have been living separately for a period of more than one year, even while residing under the same roof, their matrimonial discord became known to the public with the registration of a criminal case and on initiation of other proceedings since 7.3.2009. The better sense appears to have prevailed between the parties to the extent that with the intervention of the Mediation and Conciliation Center of the High Court, they have settled their disputes and have decided to part ways by getting their marriage dissolved through a decree of divorce by mutual consent. The petitioner – husband has agreed to pay Rs. 7 lacs to the respondent – wife in lump-sum towards permanent alimony and has already deposited the same with the registry of this Court. The respondent – wife is equally keen to get the marriage dissolved so that she can look forward to lead a new life. The parties were married more than five years ago and as per their own deposition, they have been actually living separately for a period of more than a year. Section 13-B[1] of the Act, thus, stands fully complied with. As regard to the statutory waiting period of six months contemplated by Section 13-B[2] of the Act, true it is that in the light of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Charanjit Singh Mann v Neelam Mann, AIR 2006 P&H, 201, the observance of six months waiting period is mandatory as it ensures that none of the parties at a later stage resiles from the consent and attempt to wriggle out of the consequences of a divorce decree passed on the basis of the mutual consent. In the case in hand, the waiting period of six months is yet not over. But both the husband and wife are too eager to dissolve their marriage immediately as per the settlement brought between them by the Mediation and Conciliation Center of the High Court. They have invoked the powers of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for the reprieve and set them free from each other's bondage. The parties as well as their counsel apprehended that delay in dissolution of the marriage or the forced sustenance of the relationship, might jeopardize the effects of the compromise as other civil and criminal cases pending between them can be settled only after the dissolution of their marriage. Considering the hardship likely to be faced by the parties in the event of further delay in accepting their prayer and being fully satisfied that they are living separately much before and after filing of the joint petition under Section 13-B of the Act and there is not even a remote possibility of giving second thought by anyone of them to their firm decision of parting ways and further being of the considered opinion that powers under Article 227 of the Constitution are wider than that of a Matrimonial or Appellate Court, I deem it appropriate to accept the petition and dissolve their marriage. Consequently, and for the reasons afore-stated, the revision petition is allowed; the impugned order dated 7.8.2009 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh is set aside and while accepting the petition under Section 13-B of the Act, the marriage between the parties is hereby dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent. Resultantly, the respondent – wife shall be entitled to be paid the amount of Rs.7 lacs deposited by the petitioner – husband towards permanent alimony. Registry is directed to release the said amount in her favour forthwith. The Registry is further directed to draw a decree of divorce and issue the same to the parties. Disposed of. Dasti. October 05, 2009. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE