JUDGMENT Mrs. Rekha Mittal, J.:- The present appeal lays challenge to the judgment and decree dated 4.1.2011 passed by the Additional District Judge, Yamunanagar at Jagadhari, dismissing the petition filed by the appellant-Rani, seeking divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as “the HMA”). 2. The marriage of the parties was solemnized on 10.12.2006 at Buria, District Yamun Nagar as per Hindu rites and ceremonies and a male child was born out of this wedlock. The appellant prayed for a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty. The petition was contested by the respondent-husband. After appreciating the pleadings and the evidence adduced, the trial Court dismissed the petition. 3. Feeling aggrieved by the verdict of the trial Court, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant. 4. During pendency of the appeal, parties resolved their differences by way of compromise and the appellant filed an application for permission to alter petition under Section 13 of the HMA to a petition under Section 13-B thereof. 5. In view of the statement made by counsel, in the presence of their respective parties, the application was allowed, the petition filed under Section 13 of the HMA was ordered to be altered to a petition under Section 13-B thereof. 6. Rani daughter of Ram Kumar and Rakesh Kumar son of Sat Pal got recorded their statements in first motion by way of affidavits. The relevant extract of affidavit of Rani is quoted hereinbelow:- “2. That the deponent filed petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for grant of divorce on the ground of cruelty. The petition was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Yamuna Nagar on 04.01.2011. Against the said judgment, the deponent filed FAO No. 5 of 2011. During the pendency of the appeal, the compromise has been effected between the parties. As per the compromise, the son born from the wedlock would remain with the deponent and the husband would have no concern with the custody of the son and he will not claim his custody from any competent court of law. The deponent would not claim any amount towards maintenance or permanent alimony for herself and her minor son. As per the compromise, the son born from the wedlock would remain with the deponent and the husband would have no concern with the custody of the son and he will not claim his custody from any competent court of law. The deponent would not claim any amount towards maintenance or permanent alimony for herself and her minor son. She will not claim any amount towards dowry articles given at the time of marriage except that she would be entitled for the return of dowry articles which would be returned by the husband. The deponent further states that she would withdraw all the cases pending in the court. 3. That since the parties have compromised, therefore, the marriage be dissolved by passing a decree of dissolution on mutual consent. The deponent would abide by the terms and conditions executed between the parties. The terms and conditions as incorporated in the petition under Section 13-B would be binding on the deponent.” 7. The relevant extract of the affidavit of Rakesh Kumar son of Sat Pal reads thus:- “2. That the parties have decided to dissolve their marriage by mutual consent. The deponent has gone through the affidavit filed by the petitioner No. 1. The deponent has no objection if the marriage of parties is dissolved by passing decree of divorce. The marriage of the parties may be dissolved by passing a decree of divorce. The deponent would return the dowry articles lying with him. He would not claim the custody of the minor son, the custody of whom would be remained with the petitioner No. 1. The terms and conditions as incorporated in the petition under Section 13-B would be binding on the deponent. 8. On the expiry of statutory period of six months, the parties again appeared before this Court for recording their statements in second motion. Rani daughter of Ram Kumar made a statement which reads as follows:- “I have filed the petition for grant of divorce by mutual consent voluntarily, free from any coercion, without any influence or fraud. During the period of six months, we have not been able to reconcile our differences and, therefore, my marriage may be dissolved by grant of a decree of divorce by mutual consent. I will not claim any maintenance for myself or for the child. During the period of six months, we have not been able to reconcile our differences and, therefore, my marriage may be dissolved by grant of a decree of divorce by mutual consent. I will not claim any maintenance for myself or for the child. I have already withdrawn the case registered under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.” 9. Similarly, Rakesh Kumar son of Sat Pal made a statement as extracted hereinbelow:- “I have filed the petition for grant of divorce by mutual consent voluntarily, free from any coercion, without any influence or fraud. During the period of six months, we have not been able to reconcile our differences and, therefore, my marriage may be dissolved by grant of a decree of divorce by mutual consent.” 10. We have heard counsel for the parties, perused the affidavits and statements of the parties recorded in first motion as well as second motion and are satisfied that parties have voluntarily, without any coercion, undue influence or fraud, entered into a settlement to part ways and put an end to their marital relationship as they have failed to reconcile their differences despite best efforts by their well wishers and the Court. There is nothing on record which may create any impediment in the way of parties seeking dissolution of their marriage by way of mutual consent under Section 13-B of the HMA. 11. In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, the appeal is allowed and the marriage between Rani and Rakesh Kumar is dissolved by a decree of divorce under Section 13-B of the HMA. Decree sheet be drawn up accordingly. --------0.B.S.0------------ —————————