Judgment: V.M. Kanade, J. 1. The unsuccessful husband whose Petition for divorce was dismissed by the Trial Court has filed this appeal. The facts which are necessary for determining this appeal are as under:- 2. The appellant and the respondent got married as per Hindu Vedic Rites on 10/07/2000. According to the appellant/husband, wife started ill-treating his parents and family members and soon after the marriage, he observed that the respondent was immature and always wished to have her way in everything and was dominating and very rigid in her behaviour. On 19/09/2001, respondent/wife gave birth to baby-girl “Tanvi”. Dispute and differences between husband and wife continued even after birth of the child and, according to the husband, wife used to ill-treat his parents, abuse them and also, at times, assault them. The second child was born on 17/02/2004 and it was a baby-boy who was named “Dhyan”. On 11/05/2010, respondent left her matrimonial house and she was residing separately since then. According to the husband, respondent has threatened him that she would commit suicide if the husband made any attempt for reconciliation. The husband, therefore, filed a Petition for divorce on 24/01/2011 against the respondent/wife under section (13)(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act for the cruelty caused by the respondent to the petitioner/husband. Despite service of summons, respondent/wife did not appear before the Court and, therefore, Trial Court was pleased to proceed ex parte against the wife by order dated 10/02/2012. The appellant/husband led evidence and produced list of documents in support of his Petition. Trial Court, after hearing the husband ex parte, was pleased to dismiss the Petition for divorce by judgment and order dated 12/6/2012. The present Family Court Appeal was filed in July, 2012. On 31/07/2012, notice was issued to the respondent. On 29/08/2012, appearance was filed on behalf of the respondent/wife and the Court was informed that parties were exploring the possibility of settling the dispute. On 12/09/2012, Consent Terms were filed by the appellant and by the respondent. Consent Terms were also signed by their respective advocates and they were taken on record on 25/09/2012. 3. Both the learned Counsel appearing for husband and wife contended that decree for divorce be passed by mutual consent and also urged that decree of divorce be passed forthwith without waiting for a further period of six months as contemplated under section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act. 3. Both the learned Counsel appearing for husband and wife contended that decree for divorce be passed by mutual consent and also urged that decree of divorce be passed forthwith without waiting for a further period of six months as contemplated under section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act. As per terms of the Consent Terms, both the parties had agreed to dissolve their marriage by mutual consent as contemplated under section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act. It was agreed between the parties that both the children would be in the custody of respondent/wife. It was also recorded that it was difficult for them to cohabit as husband and wife since they were living separately since October, 2006. It was also stated that exchange of articles and personal belongings between the parties was over. Respondent/wife also waived her claims of maintenance and alimony as she was self-sufficient and she had no claims in respect of any maintenance for herself or her minor children. Parties also had agreed to unconditionally withdraw all allegations made by them against each other and the husband also agreed to withdraw all allegations made by him against respondent/wife in the Petition filed by him in the Family Court as also the allegations made by him against the wife in the appeal filed by him in this Court. 4. The question which falls for consideration before this Court is : whether the said period of six months can be waived when an application for divorce by mutual consent is filed during the pendency of the appeal? 5. For the purpose of deciding the question, it is necessary to examine the said amendment which was brought about by virtue of section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which reads as under:- “13B. Divorce by mutual consent.-(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act a petition for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce may be presented to the District Court by both the parties to a marriage together, whether such marriage was solemnized before or after the commencement of the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, 1976 (68 of 1976), on the ground that they have been living separately for a period of one year or more, that they have not been able to live together and that they have mutually agreed that the marriage should be dissolved. (2) On the motion of both the parties made not earlier than six months after the date of the presentation of the petition referred to in sub-section (1) and not later than eighteen months after the said date, if the petition is not withdrawn in the meantime, the Court shall, on being satisfied, after hearing the parties and after making such inquiry as it thinks fit, that a marriage has been solemnized and that the averments in the petition are true, pass a decree of divorce declaring the marriage to be dissolved with effect from the date of the decree.” Perusal of the aforesaid provision reveals that by virtue of the said amendment, permission is granted for dissolution of Hindu marriage by mutual consent of parties, provided parties have been living separately after their marriage for a period of one year or more and that they have not been able to live together and they have mutually agreed that the marriage should be dissolved. The said provision has altered legal basis of a Hindu marriage treating it as an ordinary form of contract which competent parties can enter into and put an end to like any other contract by mutual consent. The amendment, therefore, circumvents the age-old concept of Hindu law and morality which has treated the marriage as sacrament and not a contract. However, Petition filed for divorce by consent under section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act is required to be kept in abeyance for a minimum period of six months when it is filed in the Family Court. 6. The intention of the Legislature was to provide minimum period of six months for re-thinking of the parties. If the said provision is made applicable to the appellate court, it would be powerless to grant that relief on the basis of the application filed in the lower court because 18 months must have elapsed by the time the matter reached the appellate forum although the parties are still fighting relentlessly in the appellate Court and, therefore, in our view, the said waiting period of six months can be waived in a suitable case by the appellate court because it could not have been the intention of section 13-B(2) that the appellate court should, in each case, insist that the parties should go through the futile and meaningless ceremony of again waiting for completion of six months. We are of the view, therefore, that when the appellate court is fully satisfied on the proved facts that marriage tie should be severed by mutual consent immediately since the parties have been living separately for more than the time prescribed under section 13B and that they have been fighting for sufficiently long period and, in such a case, section 13B does not impose any fetter on the powers of the court to grant instant decree of divorce. 7. We are fortified in our view by the view taken by Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in K. Omprakas vs. Nalini (AIR 1986 Andhra Pradesh 167). In its judgment in the said case, Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court observed in para 9 as under:- “9......... These considerations lead us to hold that it could not have been the intention of S.13-B(2) that the appellate Court should always drive the fighting parties to go through the purposeless forms of meaningless ceremony of petitioning again for consent divorce waiting and watching the completion of necessary number of revolutions of this mother Earth around the unmoving sun.” 8. The learned Single Judge of Madras High Court also has taken a similar view in SanthanaKrishnan vs. Poongothai Ammal (1989 Madras Law Journal Reports 319). In the said case, in para 7 it is observed as under:- “7............. For all these reasons, it is clear that when the appellate court is fully satisfied on the proved facts that the individuals marriage tie should be put asunder immediately as the parties have been living separately for more than the time prescribed under Section 13-B and that they have been fighting for a sufficiently long period, Section 13-B does not impose any fetter on the powers of court to grant instant decree of divorce. Further, the time-table fixed by Section 13-B(2) does not apply to an appellate court as has been held by a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the above quoted case, K.Omprakash v. K. Nalini, A.I.R. 1986 A.P. 167. I am in respectful agreement with the reasonings and the view expressed by the learned Judges in the above quoted decision.” 9. A similar view has been taken by Division Bench of Kerala High Court in Sreelathavs. Deepthy Kumar (AIR 1998 Kerala 97). In the said case, in para 7, it is observed as under:- “7. I am in respectful agreement with the reasonings and the view expressed by the learned Judges in the above quoted decision.” 9. A similar view has been taken by Division Bench of Kerala High Court in Sreelathavs. Deepthy Kumar (AIR 1998 Kerala 97). In the said case, in para 7, it is observed as under:- “7. Having regard to all these we are satisfied that the decree for dissolution of marriage solemnised between the parties has to be passed in terms of the memorandum of compromise filed in this Court. Hence the order of the Court below OP(HMA) No.237 of 1992 is hereby set aside. There shall be a decree in terms of the memorandum of compromise entered into between the parties and filed in this Court. The compromise memo will form part of the judgment and decree and will be incorporated in the decree to be supplied to the parties. Six months period provided under Sec.30-B is waived for the reasons recorded in the earlier part of the judgment. Both the M.A and CMP is disposed accordingly. No costs.” 10. Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court in DineshkumarShukla vs. Smt. Neeta (AIR 2005 Madhya Pradesh 106) also has taken a similar view and it has been held that the said period of six months can be waived if a joint petition for divorce is filed in a pending case instituted under section 13(1) of the Act and which has been pending for more than six months. 11. Division Bench of Karnataka High Court in Smt. Roopa Reddy vs. Prabhakar Reddy (AIR 1994 Karnataka 12), after taking into consideration judgments of various High Courts has observed in para 17 as under:- “17. From the facts made available and the views of various courts on the point, it is clear that where separation is a longer period and chances of re-union as impossibility a decree of divorce is the only prudent course and be granted. In the present case, subsequent to October 1983 no honest attempt was made by the parties to reconcile and live together. Even when attempt was made by this Court to know whether the parties are willing to reconcile, the answer given was one of refusal. This circumstance compelled the parties to seek a decree of divorce by mutual consent as they are entitled under S.13B(2) of the Act. Even when attempt was made by this Court to know whether the parties are willing to reconcile, the answer given was one of refusal. This circumstance compelled the parties to seek a decree of divorce by mutual consent as they are entitled under S.13B(2) of the Act. The application filed in this case under Order 6 Rule 17, CPC is of more than six months old anit can be treated as a compromise petition, i.e., petition for divorce by mutual consent. Since law permits that when the consent is not tainted with mala fides, fraud or coercion, but given out of free will and with the knowledge of its consequences, the application presented seeking divorce by mutual consent has to be accepted.” 12. Division Bench of this Court in Principal Judge, Family Court vs. Nil (2008(4) Bom. C.R. 539) being Civil Reference No.2 of 2007, framed two issues viz “(i) Whether the statutory waiting period of six months under section 13-B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act can be waived by the trial Court or not may kindly be decided. (ii) Necessary guidance or directions may kindly be issued as prayed.” Principal Judge, Family Court framed the said issues and had referred the matter to the High Court under section 113 of the Code of Civil Procedure for opinion and guidance. It has to be noted that with reference to the said question, Division Bench observed that the said period is mandatory. It has to be noted that the question which fell for consideration before the Division Bench was not whether the appellate Court can waive the period of six months as envisaged under section 13-B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act and, therefore, in our view, ratio of the said judgment would not apply to the facts of the present case. Even otherwise, in para 22 of the said judgment, Division Bench has observed that under very strong and exceptional circumstances, a departure can be made from observance of law. In para 22 of the said judgment, the Apex Court has observed as under:- “22. In our considered opinion, there is no occasion for the courts to exceed the limits of the specified jurisdiction and make exceptions to the application of law. In para 22 of the said judgment, the Apex Court has observed as under:- “22. In our considered opinion, there is no occasion for the courts to exceed the limits of the specified jurisdiction and make exceptions to the application of law. Very strong and exceptional circumstances should exist before departure can be made from observance of law and that too such an interpretation should also be completely in line with legislative object and must not defeat public good or public policy. A communiobservantia non est recedendum (From common observance there should be no departure.) No compulsive grounds have been made out by the petitioners which can persuade the Court to establish any exception to the rule of common observance to law..................................” 13. Applying the ratio of the aforesaid judgments and the observations made by us, we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, parties have been residing separately since 2006. Petition for divorce was filed under section 13(1) in 2010 and it was dismissed on 12/06/2012. Appeal was filed in July, 2012. The consent terms which are filed before us are indicative of some sober thinking, after exploring all possible avenues for bringing about union or to dissolve the marriage. We have also asked both, husband and wife who were present in Court and they have reiterated that consent terms have been filed after great deliberations and after taking into consideration the advantages and disadvantages involved in the case. The terms and conditions in the consent terms make it clear that each of them have no further subsisting claims over each other. We are satisfied that there is no possibility of reconciliation between the parties. We are also satisfied that the decision is not influenced by any external factors including coercion intimidation or undue influence by any person including the parents. Both the parties are educated and matured and fully comprehend the contemplated parting of ways. Having regard to these facts, we are satisfied that decree for dissolution of marriage solemnized between the parties has to be passed in terms of the consent terms filed in this court. 14. Both the parties are educated and matured and fully comprehend the contemplated parting of ways. Having regard to these facts, we are satisfied that decree for dissolution of marriage solemnized between the parties has to be passed in terms of the consent terms filed in this court. 14. For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the view that it is not necessary for the appellate court to wait for a further period of six months after an application is filed seeking conversion of the petition into a petition for divorce by mutual consent. 15. In the result, the appeal is allowed in terms of the consent terms and the marriage between the appellant and the respondent is dissolved by mutual consent under section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act. Decree be passed in terms of the consent terms. 16. Family Court Appeal is disposed of. 17. We would be failing in our duty if we do not express our sincere appreciation for the assistance given to us by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent.