JUDGMENT : ” This miscellaneous appeal as per Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 is preferred to question correctness of the order dated 14.3.2013 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Family Court, Bikaner. 2. The facts necessary for adjudication of this appeal are that appellant Guru Vikas Sharma entered into a wedlock with Ms. Shweta (Priya) on 9.7.2011. Having certain differences, the couple decided to get their marriage annulled, thus, an application in accordance with Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was presented before the Family Court, Bikaner on 24.1.2012. On 15.1.2013 statements of Ms. Shweta (Priya) (AW-1) and Guru Vikas Sharma (AW-2) were recorded by the Family Court. The statements given by the couple units read as under: ” (Vernacular matter omitted.......Ed.) 3. On the count that the spouses were not living separately for a period of one year or more, the Family Court rejected the application being pre mature by the order impugned. 4. In appeal, the submission of the appellant is that admittedly the couple units were living separately since 13.7.2011, therefore, on 14.3.2013 the court could have not treated the application pre mature, specially looking to the fact that on 15.1.2013 definite statements were made by the couple units about their separation since 13.7.2011. 5. This Court by order dated 10.4.2013 issued a notice to show cause to respondent Ms. Shweta (Priya) as to why the appeal be not admitted. The notice issued came to be served upon her in the month of November, 2013. Despite service, respondent Ms. Shweta (Priya) did not choose to appear before the Court, thus, by an order dated 9.12.2013 a fresh notice was issued to her in the terms that as to why the appeal be not finally heard and accepted as prayed at admission stage. The notice issued on 9.12.2013 came to be served upon the respondent in the month of January, 2014. The matter then came up before the Court on 18.2.2014, 20.3.2014 and 25.4.2014 and on all these dates the Court adjourned the matter, appears to be with hope of some representation on behalf of the respondent. 6. The matter then came up before the Court on an application for early hearing. Today too, none is present on behalf of the respondent. No one has also filed any power of attorney on her behalf. 6. The matter then came up before the Court on an application for early hearing. Today too, none is present on behalf of the respondent. No one has also filed any power of attorney on her behalf. Looking to the factual background noticed above, we considered it appropriate to hear the appeal today itself. 7. From perusal of the statements made by the appellant and the respondent before the Family Court, it is apparent that the couple desire to get the marriage annulled and they are also living separately since 13.7.2011. Their wish to get the marriage annulled is further strengthened by the fact that the respondent did not choose to appear before this court despite service of the notice to show cause and also for final hearing of the appeal. 8. In these circumstances, without examining merits of the order impugned, we deem it appropriate to accept the application preferred under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Accordingly, the same is allowed. The marriage of Shri Guru Vikas Sharma and Ms. Shweta (Priya) is hereby dissolved. A necessary decree be prepared and issued expeditiously. 9. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. Order accordingly