Judgment 1. This first appeal stems out of the judgment of the 1st Additional District Judge, Bhagalpur in Matrimonial Case No. 31 of 1992 in which the appellant, Prabhat Shekhar, had filed a petition for divorce under Sec. 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act ("the Act" in short) against his wife Smt. Poonam Kumari, the respondent here. 2. Having considered the materials brought on the record, and after having failed to bring in reconciliation between the husband and wife, by judgment dated 7-9-2000 the application for divorce was . dismissed on contest but without cost. During pendency of this appeal the appellant and respondent filed a joint application under Order 23, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Sec. 13 (b) of the Act. As per this application the appellant has withdrawn all the allegations of adultery levelled against the respondent which was incorporated by way of amendment in the matrimonial petition in the lower Court and both pray that a compromise decree for dissolution of marriage be passed. The appellant further states in this application that he is not ready to proceed with further hearing of the appeal in case this compromise petition is allowed, both also agreeing to bear their own litigation costs. This was signed by the appellant as well by respondent and their counsels. 3. When this matter was heard this Court called both husband and wife on 6-11-2003 in the Chambers to make an attempt to bring in reconciliation between the two. Attempt to bring in reconciliation was made in camera in absence of their lawyers. As has been recorded in order dated 7-11-2003 the husband said that they had remained separate since October, 1991, the marriage having taken place on 3-8-1991. The respondent also agreed that physically they had been living separately since two months after their marriage. Though she had found contested the application in the lower Court but in this Court she said that she felt that having been separated with her husband for so many years, and both sides having no encumbrance meaning thereby that they were issueless, she strongly felt that a separation had already taken place not only physically, but also mentally, and so far she was concerned, the marriage had broken down irretrievably. Similar sentiments were also expressed by the appellant. Similar sentiments were also expressed by the appellant. Both of them said that now no reconciliation between them was possible and they had consented for dissolution of their marriage out of their own free will as continuing with the marriage would not serve any purpose. 4. The attempt to bring in reconciliation having failed, on the application both sides were heard. 5. Such a petition under Sec. 13-B of the Act ordinarily has to be presented before the District Court having jurisdiction to entertain that. However, the parties have fought this case since the year 1992 and 11 valuable years of their lives have been weathered away so far conjugal bliss is concerned. In the interest of justice as also taking into the consideration the provisions under Sec. 107 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, in my opinion, such an application can be entertained at this stage also, particularly when the parties have reached at a compromise. In so far as provision under Section 13-B of the Act, that, after filing of such a petition the parties should be allowed six months of interregnum period to reconsider the matter in order to save the marriage is concerned, I find from the case of the appellant and the respondent that the marriage between them has broken down irretrievably and there is no scope to bring in any reconciliation between them. That being so, any delay in granting them freedom from the nuptial bonds would, in my view, only amount to keep them under mental stress for a further period of six months without any hope of an improvement in the situation. Therefore, granting of gap of six months period, provided under Sec. 13-B of the Act, is hereby dispensed with. 6. This application is allowed as of today, marriage is dissolved, the appellant and the respondent stand divorced from each other, free to lead an independent life and to search out happiness for themselves. 7. It is made clear that a question was asked by the Court at the time of hearing of the application about alimony to the respondent but the learned counsel for the respondent said that the respondent was demanding nothing from her husband except a decree for divorce. 8. In view of this order, the judgment of the lower Court is hereby set aside. Application allowed.