JUDGMENT : MANISH CHOUDHURY, J. 1. The court proceedings have been conducted through Video-Conference. 2. Sangita Dibruwal, the wife and Mridul Gogoi, the husband have filed a joint application in Mat. App. No. 37/2018 with a prayer that the Matrimonial Appeal be converted into a joint petition under section 13B of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and divorce by dissolution of marriage through mutual consent be granted. We need not go into the details because all the relevant facts are recorded in order dated 16.7.2020 passed in the application. For the benefit of convenience, order dated 16.7.2020 is extracted herein below: “The court proceedings have been conducted through Video-Conference. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant is not available. 3. The application seeks indulgence of the court to convert the matrimonial appeal in to an application under section 13(B) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and grant divorce by mutual consent. The appeal has been preferred by the wife, Sangita Dibruwal against the husband, Mridul Gogoi. 4. It has been pleaded in the application that the marriage between the two was solemnized on 16.1.2006 at Naharkatia, District-Dibrugarh, Assam. After marriage, the parties were residing in the matrimonial home. A female child was bom on 15.8.2007. The marriage survived til 2012. 5. It has further been brought out by virtue of the joint application filed on behalf of the husband and the wife that on 30.3.2012, the wife left the matrimonial home along with the child due to differences and they have been living separately. Several attempts were made for reconcilliation, however, they failed. In 2015, Sangita Dibruwal, the wife filed a petition for divorce under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act in the court of District Judge, Dibrugarh, Assam, the same being TS(D) No. 09/2015, titled ‘Smt. Sangita Dibruwal v. Mridul Gogoi’. 6. The husband contested the case by virtue of filing a written statement. The trial court dismissed the divorce petition vide the judgment and decree dated 18.2.2017. Aggrieved by the judgment of dismissal, the wife, Sangita Dibruwal has preferred Matrimonial Appeal No. 37/2018 which is pending adjudication. 7. It has been pleaded that sincere efforts have been made through the counsel for both the parties to sort out the differences, however, no fruitful result has come forth. Aggrieved by the judgment of dismissal, the wife, Sangita Dibruwal has preferred Matrimonial Appeal No. 37/2018 which is pending adjudication. 7. It has been pleaded that sincere efforts have been made through the counsel for both the parties to sort out the differences, however, no fruitful result has come forth. Finally, the parties have come to the conclusion that they would be unable to resolve the issues and, therefore, divorce be sought by mutual consent through indulgence of the court. Hence, the application. It has been pleaded that the marriage is irretrievably broken. This could be evident from the fact that since 30.3.2012 the husband and wife have been living separately. There has been litigation. A number of reconcilliation efforts have been made, however, they failed. The parties are satisfied that it is no more possible for the parties to come together. 8. By virtue of the joint application, it has also been brought out that all the claims pending between the parties have been settled. The child would remain with the mother, Sangita Dibruwal. The child needs special care. The father of the child, namely, Mridul Gogoi shall extend help for treatment of the daughter. The husband, Mridul Gogoi will provide clothes, baby food, etc., from time-to-time. A minimum sum of Rs. 1,500 per month would be given by Mridul Gogoi to Sangita Dibruwal for up keep of the child. The amount of help advanced towards the special child would be enhanced as per change in financial status of Mridul Gogoi. In any case, the amount payable shall not be less than Rs. 1,500 per month. In the said agreed returns, this court has been approached for divorce by mutual consent. 9. Prima facie we find that the essential ingredients for seeking divorce by mutual consent under section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act are satisfied. 10. Learned counsel for the wife, however, is not available and, therefore, we deem it appropriate to adjourn the matter. 11. List on 4th of August, 2020, high up on the list. 12. Parties are directed to remain present in court. 13. Let the main appeal be listed along with the interlocutory application.” 3. In deference to order dated 14.8.2020, the parties have appeared in person. We have questioned the parties separately. Sangita Dibruwal who has been identified by her counsel Ms. 12. Parties are directed to remain present in court. 13. Let the main appeal be listed along with the interlocutory application.” 3. In deference to order dated 14.8.2020, the parties have appeared in person. We have questioned the parties separately. Sangita Dibruwal who has been identified by her counsel Ms. B. Gogoi has endorsed the facts contained in paras 1, 2, 3, 4 and 13 of the application. It has been stated in categorical terms by the wife that her marriage with Mridul Gogoi was solemnized on 16.1.2006. There is a female child bom out of the wedlock on 15.8.2007. The child on account of medical complications has special needs and requirements. The applicant-wife has decided not to prolong the litigation anymore because all efforts for reconcilliation have failed. The marriage is not going to be a success as it is broken irrevocably. It has further been stated by Sangita Dibruwal, the wife that she has been living separately from the husband since 30th March, 2012. More than 8 years have gone by. It has further been stated by Sangita Dibruwal that she has agreed to accept a sum of Rs. 1,500 only at the minimum per month as maintenance for the child. The child shall remain in the custody of the mother/Sangita Dibruwal. It has further been agreed that the father/Mridul Gogoi shall extend his helping hand for the treatment of the daughter. It has further been stated that Rs. 1,500 only per month appears to be as per the ability and financial status of Mridul Gogoi. 4. Mridul Gogoi, as identified by his counsel Mr. H. Bezbarua, has also endorsed the facts stated in paras 1,2,3,4 and 13 of the application under consideration. 5. We have taken into account the fact that in 2015, Sangita Dibruwal filed a case before District Judge, Dibnigarh, Assam under section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act which was registered as TS(D) 09/2015 titled ‘Smt. Sangita Dibruwal v. Mridul Gogoi’ praying for issuance of a decree of divorce. The husband contested the case by filing written statement. The suit for divorce was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 18.2.2017. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, Sangita Dibruwal has approached this court by virtue of filing Mat. App. No. 37/2018. 6. The husband contested the case by filing written statement. The suit for divorce was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 18.2.2017. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, Sangita Dibruwal has approached this court by virtue of filing Mat. App. No. 37/2018. 6. While taking note of the facts and circumstances emanating, we find that individual affidavits of Sangita Dibruwal and Mridula Gogoi have been filed in terms of the application. We need to make exact reference to paras 1, 2, 3, 4 and 13 of the application which read as under: “1. That the applicants beg to state that they are citizen of India by birth and permanent resident of the locality above referred, therefore, they are entitled all the rights privileges guaranteed under the Constitution of India and the laws framed there under. 2. That the marriage between the applicant No. 1 -Mridul Gogoi and the applicant No. 2-Sangita Dibruwal was solemonised on 16th day of January, 2006 as per social customs and rituals at Sasoni Amguri, Naharkatiya, District Dibrugarhm, Assam. After marriage they had been residing as husband and wife in the house of applicant No 1. Out of their marriage wedlock a female Child Miss. Krishli Gogoi was bom on 15th day of August, 2007. Thereafter they were living together in the house to husband Mridul Gogoi till March 2012. 3. That on 30th day of March 2012, the applicant No. 2 herein, i.e., Sangita Dibruwal had left the matrimonial home along with her female baby due to some of differences took place between husband and wife. Since then they are living separately. 4. That though several attempts had been made by their respective family members and well-wisher but they were not been able to started their conjugal life again. ********* 13. That this application is made bona fide and to secure the ends of justice. PRAYER In the premises aforesaid, it is most respectfully prayed that the hon'ble Court may be pleased to admit this petition and further be pleased to: I. allow the applicants to file this Joint Petition under section 13B of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and further convert the present Matrimonial Appeal Proceedings to an application under section 13B of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, II. waive the statutory period of 6 months, III. waive the statutory period of 6 months, III. to grant decree to dissolve the marriage dated 16.1.2006 of applicants on “Mutual Consent”, and/or be pleased to pass such other necessary order/orders as your may deem fit and proper for the ends of justice. *********” Above narrated pleadings contained in paras 1, 2, 3, 4 and 13 of the application have been individually accepted by the parties, as noted above. 7. As the parties have preferred the joint application under section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, it is apt to refer to section 13B 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 of 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.” 8. By the joint application, the parties have also prayed for waiving the period of 6 months, prescribed in sub-section (2) of section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. 9. In Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur, (2017) 8 SCC 746 , the object of section 13B was considered by the hon'ble Supreme Court of India. It has been observed that the object of the provision is to enable the parties to dissolve a marriage by consent if the marriage has irretrievably broken down and to enable them to rehabilitate as per available options. It has been observed that the object of the provision is to enable the parties to dissolve a marriage by consent if the marriage has irretrievably broken down and to enable them to rehabilitate as per available options. It is because forcible perpetuation of status of matrimony between unwilling partners would not serve any purpose. It is interpreted that the object of the cooling-off period is to safeguard against the hurried-decision to obviate the possibility of differences being reconciled. The object is not to perpetuate a purposeless marriage or to prolong the agony of the parties when there is no chance of reconcilliation. Though every effort is to be made to save a marriage but if it is found that there are no chances of reunion then the court in view of section 13B has the power to dissolve the marriage to enable the parties to have a better option. 10. The hon'ble Supreme Court in Amardeep Singh (supra) has further observed as under: “19 [W]e are of the view that where the court dealing with a matter is satisfied that a case is made out to waive the statutory period under section 13B(2), it can do so after considering the following: (i) the statutory period of six months specified in section 13B(2), in addition to the statutory period of one year under section 13B(1) of separation of parties is Already over before the first motion itself; (ii) all efforts for mediation/conciliation including efforts in terms of order 32A, rule 3, CPC/section 23(2) of the Act/section 9 of the Family Courts Act to reunite the parties have failed and there is no likelihood of success in that direction by any further efforts; (iii) the parties have genuinely settled their differences including alimony, custody of child or any other pending issues between the parties; (iv) the waiting period will only prolong their agony. The waiver application can be filed one week after the first motion giving reasons for the prayer for waiver. If the above conditions are satisfied, the waiver of the waiting period for the second motion will be in the discretion of the court concerned. 20. The waiver application can be filed one week after the first motion giving reasons for the prayer for waiver. If the above conditions are satisfied, the waiver of the waiting period for the second motion will be in the discretion of the court concerned. 20. Since we are of the view that the period mentioned in section 13B(2) is not mandatory but directory, it will be open to the court to exercise its discretion in the facts and circumstances of each case where there is no possibility of parties resuming cohabitation and there are chances of alternative rehabilitation.” 11. When one spouse institutes a suit under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 against the other spouse seeking dissolution of their marriage by a decree of divorce he or she has to assert and thereafter, prove the ground(s), enumerated therein, to obtain the decree of divorce. He or she may be successful or unsuccessful in such attempt before the court. The statute has, however, given another option to the spouses under section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 to approach the court of competent jurisdiction together by way of a joint petition to seek a decree of divorce by mutual consent. The option to seek divorce by mutual consent under section 13B the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 cannot be said to be reliant on the outcome of the suit or proceedings instituted under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The option to seek divorce by mutual consent under section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is independent of section 13 and can be exercised at any point of time subject to the compliance of the conditions set forth therein. 12. It is settled that an appeal is a continuation of a suit or proceeding wherein the entire proceedings are again left open for consideration by the appellate court which has the power to review the entire evidence. Normally only those events which had taken place and those rights which existed at the time of institution of the suit or proceeding and which the trial court had dealt with and disposed of can be taken into consideration by the appellate court. But such a rigorous view cannot be considered stricto senso in respect of a suit or proceeding involving matrimonial matter like divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act. But such a rigorous view cannot be considered stricto senso in respect of a suit or proceeding involving matrimonial matter like divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act. In a proceeding seeking dissolution of marriage the rights, obligations, choices, etc.; of two spouses are involved. They may at one point of time are at opposition to each other on various issues but, at a later point of time, may reach a consensus to part their ways by disrupting the matrimonial relationship which they feel no longer possible to continue for which they have arrived at the terms of settlement. The statute has, therefore, given them the option to approach under section 13B. 13. Though in section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act mention is made of presentation of the joint petition before the district court, an appellate court in view of the statutory provisions contained in the Hindu Marriage Act is not disentitled to take into consideration subsequent event like a consensus arrived at by the spouses at acrimony to seek mutual divorce, during the pendency of an appeal presented against a judgment of rejection of the petition under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. An appellate court in an appropriate case can definitely take into consideration such subsequent event to respect the rights of the parties and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, more so, when such consideration would not cause any prejudice to the party who instituted the original proceeding seeking divorce. If a petition is filed under section 13B during the pendency of such appeal with the prayer to convert the proceeding under section 13 to one under section 13B the appellate court in an appropriate case can entertain such joint petition and convert the proceeding as prayed for. We need not have to deliberate, in detail, that laws of procedure are meant to regulate, assist and advance the object of doing substantial and real justice and procedure has always been viewed as the handmaid of justice and not meant to impede the cause of justice. 14. Reference in this regard can also be made to two decisions of the Division Bench of this court Subhrajyoti Das v. Uttama Das, AIR 2002 Gau 117 and Kinkar Paul v. Dipemita Paul, (2019) 4 Gau LT 506. 14. Reference in this regard can also be made to two decisions of the Division Bench of this court Subhrajyoti Das v. Uttama Das, AIR 2002 Gau 117 and Kinkar Paul v. Dipemita Paul, (2019) 4 Gau LT 506. In both the cases, this court on the joint prayer of the parties to grant divorce on mutual consent after rejection of the prayer for dissolution of marriage under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 by the court of original jurisdiction, granted divorce as an appellate court under section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. 15. As noted above, the wife has been making accusations of cruelty against the husband Mridul Gogoi. Suit for divorce filed by the wife was dismissed. Hence, Mat. App. No. 37/2018 has been carried to this court. The parties have been living separately since March, 2012, as is the common case of the parties. The parties are in litigation since 2015. A number of attempts in the interregnum period have been made for rapprochement between the parties, which, however, failed. During the pendency of the appeal, the joint application has been made for divorce by mutual consent. 16. Considering the stand of the appellant-wife and the respondent husband present in person in Court, as recorded in earlier part of this order, and on affidavit, we find that the ingredients of section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 are satisfied. The parties have been living separately for more than 1 year, rather more than 8 years. It is the common case of the wife and the husband that they have not been able to live together, and, therefore, they have mutually agreed that the marriage should be dissolved. We further find that a common motion has been moved by the wife and the husband. The matrimonial appeal has been pending since 2018 which would also be a factor to consider and more than 6 months have gone after presentation of the appeal. The parties have had sufficient time to give a thought and rethought to the matter as they were called to the court a number of times so as to make an attempt so that the dispute is settled. However, the dispute has not been settled. We have made enquiries as would be evident on perusal of order dated 16.7.2020 and other orders available in the order sheet. 17. However, the dispute has not been settled. We have made enquiries as would be evident on perusal of order dated 16.7.2020 and other orders available in the order sheet. 17. We have already taken note of the fact that the couple has special girl child whose wholesome welfare and development including education in an undisturbed manner is of primary and paramount consideration. If the parties are made to approach the district court and to file a joint petition under section 13B there at this stage again the tribulations of the parties, more particularly, of the special child would be prolonged. Any distraction of the mother on account of pending lis is likely to adversely affect the health of the child. 18. We have also taken into account the fact that the wife Sangita Dibruwal has accepted the money offered by the husband and also the fact that in case of necessity, as per financial status, the husband who is the father of the child of the parties would give support to the child, particularly because the child is a special child. 19. The facts and circumstances of the case in hand, as delineated above, are considered to be sufficient to waive the statutory period under section 13B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. We also find the essential ingredients of section 13B(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 to be satisfied. For all the afore-mentioned reasons, we, therefore, deem fit in the interest of the parties to treat this joint application as a petition under section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act for divorce by mutual consent. We order accordingly. 20. Considering the entire aspects of the case, we set aside the Judgment and decree dated 18.2.2017 passed by the learned Additional District Judge (FTC), Dibrugarh in T.S. (D) No. 09/2015 titled ‘Smt. Sangita Dibruwal v. Mridul Gogoi’ and hereby direct dissolution of marriage between Sangita Dibruwal, d/o Bogadhar Dibruwaal and Mridul Gogoi, s/o Mohan Gogoi by mutual consent. 21. The decree be drawn accordingly. 22. The appeal and the interlocutory application are disposed of in the above terms.