JUDGMENT Bhawani Singh, J —This appeal, by the husband, arises out of the Judgment of District Judge, Simla in HMA No. 2O-S/3 of 1988 decided on 31-3- 98V. By this decision, the petition jointly moved by the parties under section 13-B (1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (as amended) has been dismissed. 2. The facts, in brief, are that the appellant and the respondent were married, according to Hindu rites at Patiala on 15-7-1984 where after they remained at different places including Simla. However, they started living separately since the 15th day of July, 1987 and they say that they were living apart due to difference in mental attitude and nature with each other. 3. The parties mutually agreed to put an end to the matrimonial alliance and with this end in view, preferred a petition under section 3-B (1) of Hindu Marriage Act for divorce with mutual consent. The trial Court recorded the statements of the parties on oath and fixed the case for further proceedings on 23-2-1989, further the respondent moved an application on 23-2-1989 for the withdrawal of the petition. In this application the respondent stated that she consented for the filing of the petition owing to undue influence and threats exercised on her. This application was opposed by the appellant who contended, inter alia, that the petition for divorce by mutual consent was moved freely and without exercise of any kind of pressure or influence on the respondent. The parties agreed mutually to do so and the petition was accordingly filed. The District Judge, after hearing arguments in the matter, dismissed the petition as having been withdrawn by the respondent, This is how the Judgment has been challenged by the appellant by way of this appeal. 4. Shri D. N. Sharma, Counsel for the appellant contended that the impugned Judgment deserves to be set aside since the same is not only against the facts and evidence on record but also against law. It was submitted that it was a joint petition moved by the parties without any threat or pressure from anyone. 4. Shri D. N. Sharma, Counsel for the appellant contended that the impugned Judgment deserves to be set aside since the same is not only against the facts and evidence on record but also against law. It was submitted that it was a joint petition moved by the parties without any threat or pressure from anyone. They gave their statements in support of the same and the application for withdrawal of the petition by the respondent was as a result of pressure exercised on her by certain persons, however, same could not be permitted since the appellant was not a consenting party as the same was necessary for the withdrawal of the petition moved jointly by them. In order to support his submission strong reliance was placed on decision of case decided by me, namely, Parkash v. Sureshta Devi, FAO (MHA) No. 28/1989, decided on August 1, 1989 where this kind of proposition was directly in issue. In that case also a joint petition for divorce by mutual consent was moved by the parties but during the period of six months, i e« allowed by the Court in such like proceeding? before deciding the matter finally, the wife filed an application challenging the filing of the petition for divorce by mutual consent on the ground that she was not a consenting party for moving the petition at the initial stage since the consent was obtained under pressure and threat by the husband. It was found that this was not so and the petition moved jointly could not be withdrawn unilaterally without the consent of the husband. Further, the parties had given their statements in the Court on oath stating that there was no possibility of their remaining together and the marriage may be dissolved by a decree of divorce. While coming to the conclusion that this kind of petition could not be withdrawn unilaterally, assistance was sought from paras 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 of Single Bench decision of Delhi High Court reported in Smt. Chander Kama v. Hans Kumar and others, AIR 1989 Delhi 73 in place of the decision of Kerala High Court reported in K. I. Mohanan v. Smt. Jeejabai, AIR 1988 Kerala 28 propounding the contrary proposition. 5. In the present case also the petition was moved jointly by the parties. It has been signed by both of them. 5. In the present case also the petition was moved jointly by the parties. It has been signed by both of them. Endorsement on the petition also shows that it was presented to the Court by both the parties on 20-7-1988 and was put up on 27-7-1988 on which date it was postponed to 10-8-1988. The Order Sheet of the day shows that re-conciliation between the parties was tried but it could not succeed and the matter was fixed on 19-8-1988 for the recording of the statement of the parties. On 19-8-1988 the Court passed the following order:— "The parties are husband and wife and have moved this Court through a petition under section 13 (B) of Hindu Marriage Act for a Decree of Divorce by mutual consent. Re-conciliation were tried between husband and wife but failed. Their statements have been recorded on oath. They are not in a mood to be united and want to press the present petition preferred for a decree of divorce by mutual consent. This petition be put up for 23-2-1989 for further proceedings. Sd/- District Judge, Simla." 6. It is pertinent to submit that this petition under section 13 (B) of the Hindu Marriage Act has been supported by the separate affidavits of the parties. In her statement, the respondent has stated that they remained together as husband and wife upto 15-7-1987 and after this date they were living separate and now they cannot live together because they quarrel with each other and they cannot live together under any circumstances since their relations have deteriorated enormously. She also states that there is a great difference in their mental attitude and as they cannot live together so they have filed the petition with mutual consent. 7. In view of these circumstances it is absolutely difficult to uphold the impugned Judgment and uphold the contention of Mrs. Ranjana Parmar that the petition was moved under pressure and threats and that the respondent could move the application unilaterally for the withdrawal of the petition once moved jointly by the parties by placing her reliance on Harcharan Kaur v. Nachhatar Singh, AIR 1988 Punjab & Haryana 27. Ranjana Parmar that the petition was moved under pressure and threats and that the respondent could move the application unilaterally for the withdrawal of the petition once moved jointly by the parties by placing her reliance on Harcharan Kaur v. Nachhatar Singh, AIR 1988 Punjab & Haryana 27. Further, evidence on record clearly demonstrate that the joint petition moved initially by the parties was not actuated by any kind of pressure or threat so the application moved at the subsequent stage was without any justification- nor for any tangible reasons The petition, therefore, could not be dismissed simply because this kind of application was preferred by the respondent and the trial Court should have decided the same on merits. 8. The result of the aforesaid examination is that in view of the statements of the parties seeking divorce by mutual consent the impugned order has to be set aside. The parties failed to unite despite the efforts made in this behalf. In a case where parties have reached a stage of not return, it is not desirable to compel them to live together. 9. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed, the Judgment of District Judge is set aside and the marriage between the parties is dissolved by a decree of divorce under section 13-B of the Act. However, they are left to bear their own costs. Appeal allowed.