JUDGMENT : (Ritu Tagore, J.) Prayer in the present appeal is for setting aside judgment dated 18.08.2020 passed by learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Hoshiarpur, Camp Court Dasuya (hereinafter to be referred as the "Family Court"), whereby petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') in HMA case No.22 of 28.01.2020 titled 'Kulwinder Kaur v. Gurmit Singh Jilk' for dissolution of marriage between the parties by mutual consent has been allowed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that marriage between the parties was solemnized on 29.03.2006 as per Sikh rites at village Raiya, Tehsil Dasuya, District Hoshiarpur. It is pleaded appellant No.1 and 2 were in live-in relationship before marriage and appellant No.1 gave birth to a male child namely, Harmandeep Singh, whose date of birth is 18.11.2005 and is presently living in care and custody of appellant No.2-father in Germany. With the efforts of respectables and relatives, marriage between the parties was solemnized on 29.03.2006. They lived and cohabited together as husband and wife at village Jahura Tehsil Dasuya, District Hoshiarpur. Two months after their marriage appellant No.2 went abroad i.e Germany but continued his occasional visits to India. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that relation between them remained cordial for some years but thereafter it became strained. On account of temperamental differences, they started living separately since 2015. Ultimately, petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of marriage by way of mutual consent was filed before the Court of learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Hoshiarpur, Camp Court Dasuya on 28.01.2020. As per settlement between the appellants, appellant No.1 received lump sum agreed amount from appellant No.2 for her maintenance. Custody of the child, it was decided shall be with appellant No.2 (father). Petition under 13-B of the Act was allowed vide judgment and decree dated 18.08.2020 and marriage was dissolved. 4. After obtaining decree of divorce with mutual consent under Section 13-B of the Act. appellant No.2 took their son Harmandeep Singh to Germany on 18.10.22. Since then son is living with appellant No.2 his father. It is averred that appellants realized their mistake in parting ways. They have now reconciled their differences and decided to resume matrimonial ties for the sake of minor child and to ensure a good future for him. appellant No.2 took their son Harmandeep Singh to Germany on 18.10.22. Since then son is living with appellant No.2 his father. It is averred that appellants realized their mistake in parting ways. They have now reconciled their differences and decided to resume matrimonial ties for the sake of minor child and to ensure a good future for him. Appellant No.1, it is stated is living in the matrimonial home since 09.09.2021 and both appellants are having cordial relations. Therefore, they seek setting aside of judgment dated 18.08.2020. 5. In the wake of categoric pleadings of the parties, they were directed to remain present in Court on 30.01.2023. Patties accordingly appeared in Court on the said date. Both of them on pointed queries of the Court specifically stated that they have resolved their differences amicably and are residing together peacefully for their future life and for the welfare of their only child. They prayed that the decree of divorce though secured by them through mutual consent be set aside so that they may again cohabit as husband and wife. 6. To verify the bonafides of their assertions, parties were directed to appear before learned Family Court, Dasuya on 03.02.2023 for recording their statement along with statements of mother and maternal uncle of Gurmit Singh Jilk-appellant no I and brother of Kulwinder Kaur, who is stated to be residing in Germany. Interaction with brother of Kulwinder Kaur-appellant No.2 was directed to be carried out through video conferencing and learned Family Court, was directed to send the report along with the statements of all concerned. 7. In this regard, report dated 03.02.2023 has been received from the Principal Judge, Family Court, Hoshiarpur, wherein it is reported that parties have got recorded their statements voluntarily, without any coercion and pressure. It is also stated that parties have compromised the matter genuinely and they have no grudges with each other and are now residing together for a brighter future and for the welfare of their child. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants and have gone through the paper-book. 9. Division Bench of this Court in Jyoti v. Neeraj Kumar Saini, 2019(1) R.C.R. (Civil) 748 has observed in respect to maintainability of an appeal challenging a consent decree Under Section 13-B of the Act as under: - "5. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants and have gone through the paper-book. 9. Division Bench of this Court in Jyoti v. Neeraj Kumar Saini, 2019(1) R.C.R. (Civil) 748 has observed in respect to maintainability of an appeal challenging a consent decree Under Section 13-B of the Act as under: - "5. In this regard, learned counsel for the appellants has referred to a judgment of the division bench of this Court rendered in the case of Krishna Khetarpal, Headmistress, Government Girls High School, Bhuna, Tehsil Fatehabad, District Hisar v. Satish Lal; 1986(2) PLR 608 in which the same issue had arisen and it has been decided that the appeal against the consent decree passed under Section 13-B is appealable under Section 28 of the Act and Sub Section 3 of section 96 of the CPC has no bar. Since, this issue is no more res integra as already been decided by this Court, therefore, we have entertained the appeal." 10. While referring to the judgment passed in Krishna Khetarpal's case (supra), the Division Bench had examined this issue in detail and held that under Section 28 of the Act, an appeal against the consent decree of divorce under Section 13-B of the Act by either party, was maintainable, as a matter of right. Tn para 5 of the said judgment, the Division Bench has observed as under- "An appeal against the decree of divorce by mutual consent distinctly is not merely on consent of the parties, for the matrimonial Court is involved in decision making so that it accords not only with provisions of Section 13-B of the Act but also Section 23 of the Act. In sub-section 13-B of the Act. a joint petition by the spouses can be presented to the District Court on the ground that they have been living separately for a period of one year or more before the presentation of the petition and that they have not been able to live together and further that they have mutually agreed that the marriage should be dissolved. The petition then lies in hibernation for six months and under sub-section (2) both the parties have to activate it on the motion to the Court. The petition then lies in hibernation for six months and under sub-section (2) both the parties have to activate it on the motion to the Court. It is then that the Count enters upon an enquiry into the facts where the marriage has been solemnized and whether the averments in the petition are true and further there are no impediments in the way as conceived of in Section 23 and in particular of sub-section (1)(bb) that such consent has not been obtained by force, fraud or undue influence. Thus a decree for divorce by mutual consent is not based merely on mutuality of the consenting parties but the court's involvement in decision making is inextricably a part of the decree. And since the possibility of an error, legal or factual, entering in the decision making cannot be ruled out, an appeal under Section 28 of the Act has advisedly been provided. Besides, Section 12 of the said Act says that subject to other provisions contained in the said Act and to such rules and the High Court may make in this behalf as proceedings under the said Act shall be regulated, as far as may be, by the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. Thus the proceedings in the appeal are to be regulated as far as may be, by the Civil Procedure Code without altering the substantive right of appeal to the parties concerned. On the above analysis and differentiation, the conclusion is inescapable that an appeal against a consent decree under Section 138 of the Act is appealable under Section 28 of the Act and sub-section (3) of the section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code is no bar. Similarly any other consent decree passed under the said Act is also appealable." 11. Thus an appeal qua the decree of divorce under Section 13-B of the Act is clearly maintainable. In the case of Jyoti (supra), in similar circumstances as are presented in this case, decree of divorce granted under Section 13-B of the Act was set aside while observing as under:- "9. Thus an appeal qua the decree of divorce under Section 13-B of the Act is clearly maintainable. In the case of Jyoti (supra), in similar circumstances as are presented in this case, decree of divorce granted under Section 13-B of the Act was set aside while observing as under:- "9. We are happy that in the present case, both the husband and wife have approached this Court for correcting their mistake not only because they have found that their decision was not good for themselves but also realized that by getting divorce they will be depriving the love and affection of both the father and the mother to their only child. 10. Thus, in these peculiar facts and circumstances, when both the parties have forgiven each other and have decided to live together for a better future for the family which includes Vedanshi, this Court is of the view that it is never late to mend and therefore, we allowed this appeal and set aside the judgment and decree dated 29.11.2018 by which marriage of the appellant was dissolved. 12. We have gone through the report of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Hoshiarpur wherein he has reported that parties have compromised the matter genuinely for their future life and for the welfare of their child. In the present case too as in the case of Jyoti v. Neeraj, (supra), parties having realized their mistake in parting ways have again come together. Clearly, such a step shall be beneficial for both the parties as well as their child. 13. Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, instant appeal is allowed and impugned judgment & decree dated 18.08.2020 passed by learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Hoshiarpur, Camp Court Dasuya, vide which marriage of the parties was dissolved, is hereby set aside. 14. As the matter has been considered and decided on merits, adjudication of application seeking condonation of delay of 218 days in filing appeal is rendered academic. Application is disposed of accordingly. 15. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, is/are disposed of accordingly.