JUDGMENT : ANTONY DOMINIC, J. 1. Petitioners are husband and wife. They have filed O.P. (Divorce) No. 1417/12 under S. 10A of the Divorce Act which is pending consideration of the Family Court, Pathanamthitta. According to the petitioners, after the filing of the petition, counselling was conducted on 26.11.12 and it failed. The period contemplated under S. 10 has elapsed and thereafter since both the petitioners are in Saudi Arabia and are unable to obtain leave to be present in Court, their counsel has filed Ext. P2 application requesting the Family Court to pass a decree dissolving the marriage. Since the application is made by the counsel and not the parties themselves, the Court is stated to have declined to accept the same and it is therefore that this O.P. has been filed by the petitioners jointly with a prayer to direct the Family Court to accept Ex. P2 and allow the same by granting a decree dissolving their marriage, which was solemnized on 31.8.1995 at the St. George Orthodox Syrian Church, Oonnukkal. Admittedly Ext. P1, O.P. (Div.) No. 1417/2012 was filed by both the petitioners. For counselling also, they appeared and the counselling failed. Therefore, on the expiry of the statutory period specified under S. 10, all that was required was filing of a joint application for a decree of dissolution. There is no law prescribing that the second motion for a decree of dissolution should be filed by the petitioners themselves or that they should be present by themselves. This aspect is already dealt with by a Division Bench of this Court in the judgment in W.P. (C) No. 36119/09 where this Court has held thus: 6. We may hasten to observe that the personal presence of such applicants/spouses on the application for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent need not be unnecessarily insisted by the court. It is submitted that the parties find it difficult to personally appear after the period of waiting. After the period of waiting, a second motion need only be made and personal presence of the spouses need not be insisted. The learned counsel can make such second motion on their behalf. Their presence need not also be insisted to tender evidence. Ordinarily chief affidavits can be filed by them to state their case on oath. Hence the personal presence of the parties need not ordinarily be insisted. The learned counsel can make such second motion on their behalf. Their presence need not also be insisted to tender evidence. Ordinarily chief affidavits can be filed by them to state their case on oath. Hence the personal presence of the parties need not ordinarily be insisted. In the instant case, conciliation has already taken place, it is submitted. Even otherwise, ritualistic insistence on personal presence of the parties for conciliation/counselling need not be made by a court in a joint application for divorce on the ground of mutual consent, if the court is otherwise satisfied about the genuineness of the application. In view of the above, we see no reason to decline the prayer sought for by the petitioners. 2. Therefore, we dispose of the O.P. directing that the counsel for the petitioners will be free to present Ext. P2 application before the Family Court along with a copy of this judgment. Thereupon the Family Court, Pathanamthitta shall accept the application and deal with the same in accordance with law. Petitioners will produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the Original Petition before the Family Court for information.