JUDGMENT : S.K. Sahoo, J. This matrimonial appeal under section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 read with section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 has been filed by appellant Bipin Kumar Samal (hereafter “the appellant-husband”) challenging the impugned judgment and order dated 08.05.2015 of the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack passed in Civil Proceeding No. 370 of 2014 in dismissing the petition filed by the appellant-husband under section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of his marriage with Minarva Swain @ Samal (hereafter “the respondent-wife”) by a decree of divorce. 2. The appellant-husband filed the petition for divorce stating therein that his marriage with the respondent-wife was solemnized on 06.05.2011 as per the Hindu customs and rites and about three months after marriage, the respondent-wife started misbehaving with her in-laws family members in an aggressive manner. She used to throw away and destroy the utensils of the house and always persuading the appellant-husband to live separately in a rented house from the other family members. As the appellant-husband did not agree to such proposal given by the respondent-wife, she threatened him to kill as well as his family members by administering poison in their food. The respondent-wife tortured the appellant-husband and her in-laws family members. She lodged a false complaint before State Women’s Commission against the petitioner and her in-laws family members so also an FIR at Barachana Police Station alleging dowry torture in order to harass them. It is the further case of the appellant-husband that the respondent-wife left the matrimonial house on 05.09.2011 and despite several attempts made by him as well as his parents, no reconciliation was possible due to adamant attitude of the respondent-wife. 3. The respondent-wife on being noticed filed her written statement denying the averments made in the divorce petition. It is the case of the respondent-wife that after her marriage, she stayed in the matrimonial house for about four months and during that period, she was subjected to torture by the appellant-husband and his family members in connection with further demand of dowry of Rs.50,000/- and a motor cycle. It is her further case that on 01.09.2011 the in-laws family members attempted to kill her by setting her on fire with kerosene but fortunately she was rescued by the neighbours. It is her further case that on 01.09.2011 the in-laws family members attempted to kill her by setting her on fire with kerosene but fortunately she was rescued by the neighbours. It is her further case that on getting information about the incident, her father, uncle and brother came to the house of the appellant-husband but they were misbehaved by her in-laws family members and she was also driven out of her matrimonial house on 07.09.011. It is her further case that even though she was always ready and willing to lead conjugal life with the appellant-husband but her husband did not turn up to take her back. The respondent-wife prayed for dismissal of the divorce proceeding. 4. The learned Judge, Family Court, formulated the following points for determination:- (i) Whether the respondent-wife after solemnization of marriage treated the appellant-husband with cruelty? (ii) Whether the respondent-wife has deserted her husband without reasonable cause? 5. In order to establish his case, the appellant-husband examined three witnesses including himself as P.W.1. P.W. 2 Bikram Kumar Samal is the cousin brother of the appellant-husband and P.W.3 Bipra Charan Nayak is the one of the co-villager of the appellant-husband. The appellant-husband also proved certain documents in support of his case. Ext.1 is the xerox copy of the FIR dated 16.05.2011, Ext.2 is the xerox copy of the application submitted by the respondent-wife, Ext.3 is the xerox copy is the petition under section 24 of CPC filed by the respondent-wife, Ext.4 is the Physically Handicapped Certificate and Ext.5 is the medical prescriptions in four sheets. The respondent-wife examined three witnesses including herself as P.W.1. O.P.W.2 Anandi Charan Jena is her uncle and O.P.W.3 Pramod Kumar Swain is her father. The respondent-wife also proved certain documents. Ext.A is the xerox copy of Panchayat Faisalanama dated 25.03.2012 and Exts. B, C and D are the cash memos. 6. The learned Family Judge while adjudicating on point no.1 held that the allegations made against the respondent-wife do not amount to ‘cruelty’ in the eye of law. So far as point no.2 is concerned, it was held that the ground of ‘desertion’ is not made out against the respondent-wife. The learned Family Judge held that since the appellant-husband failed to establish the grounds of ‘cruelty’ and ‘desertion’ in accordance with law, the divorce petition deserved to be dismissed. 7. So far as point no.2 is concerned, it was held that the ground of ‘desertion’ is not made out against the respondent-wife. The learned Family Judge held that since the appellant-husband failed to establish the grounds of ‘cruelty’ and ‘desertion’ in accordance with law, the divorce petition deserved to be dismissed. 7. Challenging the impugned judgment and order of the learned Family Judge, this matrimonial appeal has been filed with a prayer to set aside the same and to dissolve the marriage between the parties. 8. On being noticed, the respondent-wife appeared in the case. 9. On the date of hearing, both the spouses were present in person along with their respective counsels. The spouses decided to part away and not to stay together. The respondent-wife furnished a list of gifts given at the time of marriage and as per understating between the parties, the appellant-husband was directed to return the entire marriage gifts to the respondent-wife and to pay her Rs. 4,00,000/- (rupees four lakhs) and the parties were directed to file their respective affidavits with a prayer that their marriage be dissolved by mutual consent. On that day the appellant-husband tendered a bank draft of Rs. 1,00,000/- (rupees one lakh) standing in the name of respondent-wife which was handed over to her in Court and she was directed to get it encashed. The appellant-husband was directed to come with the rest of the amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- (rupees three lakhs) in the shape of a bank draft on the next date. On the next date, the appellant-husband tended a bank draft of Rs. 3,00,000/- (rupees three lakhs) standing in the name of respondent-wife which was directed to be kept in sealed cover and both the parties were directed to file a joint affidavit mentioning therein about the outside Court settlement and for passing a decree of divorce by mutual consent. The appellant-husband as well as the respondent-wife filed a joint application for divorce by mutual consent under section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in Court wherein they have stated that both the parties on outside Court settlement have amicably decided to dissolve their marriage by way of mutual consent of divorce for their better future as there is no chance of reunion between them as the marriage has been irretrievably broken down. They enumerated the following terms and conditions in their mutual divorce application:- (i) The appellant shall pay permanent alimony of Rs. 4,00,000/- (Rupees four lakhs) to the respondent; (ii) The appellant shall return all the gifted items which the respondent had brought during marriage and afterwards; (iii) The respondent will withdraw G.R. Case No. 473 of 2012 pending in the Court of J.M.F.C., Chandikhol by filing affidavit in the Court below along with the certified copy of the order passed in this appeal; (iv) The respondent will not have any further claim upon the appellant either in cash or in kind after receipt of permanent alimony; (v) After dissolution of marriage, both parties will not interfere in each other’s personal life and to live their life peacefully. Out of the aforesaid terms and conditions, the appellant has already deposited amount of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees four lakhs) in shape of bank draft in favour of respondent (Minarva Swain) as permanent alimony and also already retuned all the articles on 08.11.2015 which the respondent had brought at the time of marriage. It is further mentioned in the mutual divorce application that the petition for divorce on mutual consent was filed without any undue influence or coercion from any quarter as both the parties have mutually agreed to dissolve their marriage as there was no meaning to remain with the bond. Accordingly, prayer was made for dissolution of marriage by decree of divorce under section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for the betterment of the parties. 10. Accordingly, prayer was made for dissolution of marriage by decree of divorce under section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for the betterment of the parties. 10. In view of the lawful mutual agreement and compromise between the parties and filing of an application for divorce by mutual consent and considering the prayer made in the application and the fact that the parties have been remaining separately since the month of September 2011 and also being satisfied that the marriage between the parties has been broken down irretrievably and there is no chance of reunion and giving our anxious consideration in the matter and the terms of settlement arrived at between the parties and in furtherance of the settlement, the appellant-husband has already deposited the entire amount of permanent alimony and returned all the articles which the respondent-wife had brought at the time of marriage to her, for the ends of justice we admit the compromise between the parties as we are satisfied that the compromise have been lawfully entered into between the parties without any coercion and out of their own volition and the mutual consent has not been obtained by force, fraud or undue influence. Accordingly we dissolve the marriage between Bipin Kumar Samal and Minarva Swain @ Samal which was solemnized on 06.05.2011 in accordance with Hindu customs and rites by a decree of divorce and it is further directed that the compromise petition shall form the part of the decree. It is further directed that the parties shall remain bound by their statements. The bank draft of Rs. 3,00,000/- (rupees three lakhs) bearing Draft No. 589498 dated 18.11.2015 of the State Bank of India standing in the name of Minarva Swain tendered by the appellant-husband in Court on 20.11.2015 and kept in sealed cover shall be handed over to the respondent-wife on proper identification. She is directed to make an endorsement in the order sheet regarding receipt of the same. She is free to get the bank draft encashed. The appeal is disposed of accordingly and there shall be no order as to cost.