Judgment ( 1. ) PETITIONER No. 1 Poonam sharma is present in person. She is identified by her counsel Mr. P. C. Nair. Petitioner No. 2 Abhishek Sharma had appeared on the last date and was identified by Shri P. C. Nair, Advocate. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the learned Court below was unjustified in rejecting the petitioners application filed under Section 13-B of the Hindu marriage Act on the ground that as the period of six months from the date or filing of the application under Section 13-B has not passed, the application could not be entertained. Placing reliance upon the Single bench judgment of this Court in the matter of Anamika Shrivastava v. Vivek shrivastava, 2007 (4) MPHT 374, Smt. Roopa Reddy v, Prabhakar Reddy, AIR 1994 kant 12, K. Omprakash v. K. Nalini, AIR 1986 Andhra Pradesh 167 and Dhanjit vadra v. Smt. Beena Vadra, AIR 1990 Delhi 146, it is contended that the period of six months as provided under Section 13-B (2)of the Act, is not mandatory but, is only directory and, the court can reduce the period looking to the requirement. ( 2. ) AFTER going through the said judgments, we also hold that the learned Court below was not Justified in not taking-up the application in its true perspective. ( 3. ) IT is to be seen from the document filed before us that the suit had been filed on 23-7-2008 by applicant No. 2 Abhishek sharma seeking decree of divorce, however, during pendency of the suit, the parties appeared to have entered into some mutual consent and, therefore, they filed an application under section 13-B on 21-10-08 with a submission to the Court that the parties are giving consent to the divorce and, therefore, they had filed an application seeking a decree of divorce by mutual consent. Such an application, if is filed during pendency of the suit, then the application would relate back to the date of filing of the suit and, therefore, in this case, the application dated 21-10-2008 would relate back to 23-7-2008 which is the date of filing of the suit. ( 4. Such an application, if is filed during pendency of the suit, then the application would relate back to the date of filing of the suit and, therefore, in this case, the application dated 21-10-2008 would relate back to 23-7-2008 which is the date of filing of the suit. ( 4. ) AS the parties have appeared before us and have clearly stated that it is impossible for them to live together and they have agreed for a divorce, we have no hesitation in accepting the application filed under section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. It is hereby directed that the wedlock shall stand unlocked and the marriage between the parties shall stand dissolved. Petitioner no. 2 shall pay Rs. 6,00,000/- (Rupees six lacs) to petitioner No. 1. As the demand draft no. 261948 dated 11-10-2008 has been given to petitioner No. 1 in the Open Court, she submits that she gives-up all her rights in relation to the future maintenance or permanent alimony. ( 5. ) TAKING into consideration the totality of the circumstances, it is hereby directed that this judgment and decree shall come into operation with effect from 23-1-2009. ( 6. ) THE petition is allowed. There shall be no orders as to the cost. Petition allowed.