ORDER : 1. Under Hindu Law, the institution of marriage is considered a sacrosanct union, and divorce is considered as a last resort by the parties, only as an option when all the other options of re-conciliation fail. A Hindu marriage is not in the nature of a civil contract and is rather a revered union that has multifold socio-economic implications, on the lives of the spouses involved. In light of the aforesaid and the patriarchal structure of the society, a woman finds her place in the vulnerable class. This peculiar position of women in society is well-acknowledged and addressed by the legislature through statutory provisions in the form of affirmative actions. The instant case also revolves around one such welfare provision. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the parties entered into a wedlock on 12.06.2015, as per Hindu customs, at the appellant-wife’s parental home in the village Bichore. They have a daughter named Tanishka, who is about 7 years old. However, the parties could not continue with the satisfactory matrimonial relationship, as their differences, were beyond the resolution, they decided to part their ways and subsequently filed an application for divorce under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, which was granted. 3. The limited bone of contention before this Court is that the learned court below while deciding the issue has opined in paragraph 10 of the impugned judgment as follows :- ^^pwafd ;kfpdkdrkZx.k nksuksa us la;qDr :i ls vkilh lgefr ds vk/kkj ij /kkjk 13ch fganw fookg vf/kfu;e ds rgr ;g ;kfpdk izLrqr dh gSA izkFkZuk i= ds leFkZu esa nksuksa i{kksa esa U;k;ky; esa mifLFkr gksdj tks ekSf[kd lk{; izLrqr dh gS] mlds vuqlkj mudk fookg fganw jhfr fjokt ds vuqlkj fnukad 12-06-2015 dks laiUu gksuk crk;k gSA i{kdkjku dk vkilh lgefr ds vk/kkj ij fookg foPNsn dh fMdzh izkIr djuk pkgrs gSaA izkFkhZx.k ds lk{; ls ;g Li"V tkfgj gksrk gS fd os djhc nks o"kZ dh vof/k ls vyx&vyx fuokl dj jgs gSaA vc nksuksa i{kksa dk ,dlkFk jguk eqefdu ugha gS rFkk nksuksa i{kksa ds chp dksbZ nqjfHklaf/k gksuk izFken`"V;k ugha ik;k x;k gSA** 4. The court below has arrived at a considered conclusion that both the parties were not having conducive environment to live together, and thus without any kind of fraud or collusion they want their marriage to be set aside and therefore granted divorce. The court below has arrived at a considered conclusion that both the parties were not having conducive environment to live together, and thus without any kind of fraud or collusion they want their marriage to be set aside and therefore granted divorce. However at the same time in paragraph 12 of the judgment, while granting the decree of divorce under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, the benefit of governmental job to a divorcee has been denied by the learned trial court. For ready reference, the paragraph 12 of the judgment impugned is reproduced hereunder :- ^^ifj.kker% izkFkhZx.k dh vksj ls izLrqr izkFkZuk i= vraxZr /kkjk 13ch fganw fookg vf/kfu;e ,rn~}kjk Lohdkj fd;k tkdj izkFkhZ la[;k 1 Jherh eerk rsyh o izkFkhZ la[;k 2 v'kksd dqekj rsyh ds e/; fganw jhfr fjokt vuqlkj fnukad 12-06-2015 dks lEikfnr gq, fookg dks vkilh lgefr ds vk/kkj ij vkt fu.kZ; ds fnukad ls fo?kfVr dj fookg foPNsfnr fd;k tkrk gSA i{kdkjku dk fookg foPNsn fd;k tkrk gS] fdarq mDr fookg foPNsn dk vkns'k@fMdzh izkFkhZ la[;k 01 eerk rsyh o izkFkhZ la[;k 02 v'kksd dqekj rsyh fdlh Hkh izdkj dh ljdkjh] xSj ljdkjh ukSdjh] ykHk rFkk ifjykHk ds fy, ;g fookg foPNsn dh vkns'k@fMdzh ekU; ugha gksxkA fMdzh ipkZ fu;ekuqlkj cuk;k tkosA** 5. Learned counsel Mr. Anil Vyas appearing for the appellant submits that once the court had reached at a considered conclusion that this was a fit case for granting divorce under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, with the consent of both the parties and without any kind of adverse finding regarding the type of litigation, then it was imperative for the Court to not withhold any kind of benefit, which arise due to the status of divorcee appellant-wife. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that matrimony is an institution in itself and once it collapses for various reasons as well as the parties have the maturity to enter into a divorce by mutual consent, then the parties cannot be deprived any kind of legislative/policy/benefit, which is invoked for the purpose of protecting the women in question. 7. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that matrimony is an institution in itself and once it collapses for various reasons as well as the parties have the maturity to enter into a divorce by mutual consent, then the parties cannot be deprived any kind of legislative/policy/benefit, which is invoked for the purpose of protecting the women in question. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the governance, in its own wisdom, has provided a secure environment for the lady by giving her some preference in the public employment and once such benefit has been conferred, then it is not open for the learned trial court to withdraw such benefits by passing a specific observation/direction in the impugned judgment. 8. Probably, after having a divorce by mutual consent, the respondent-husband himself may no longer be interested in contesting the case, particularly with regard to the rights of the appellant-wife. Therefore, when none had appeared for the respondent side despite service, this Court vide order dated 20.01.2025 appointed learned counsel Mr. Abhimanyu Khatri as Amicus Curiae to assist the Court on behalf of the respondent-husband. 9. Learned Amicus Curiae Mr. Abhimanyu Khatri submits that the Court has to be conscious that no provision of law has been abused for the purpose of giving any kind of advantage, whether by way of collusive orders or by playing any kind of fraud with the system. He further submits that there is no such provision in law under which the appellant-wife can be denied the benefit, unless it is done for a valid reason. 10. This court is of the opinion that matrimony has its own sanctity and both the husband and wife carry the responsibility of putting the means of marriage in place, for the purpose of maintaining and carrying forward a harmonious relationship. The marriage in India is an institution, which is not only protected under the statute; but it also carries great significance in terms of societal norms. It is an amalgamation between two individuals, who, by their union, carry forward and discharge matrimonial obligations towards each other as well as their families, thus, making it a pious union full of sanctity. The marriage in India is an institution, which is not only protected under the statute; but it also carries great significance in terms of societal norms. It is an amalgamation between two individuals, who, by their union, carry forward and discharge matrimonial obligations towards each other as well as their families, thus, making it a pious union full of sanctity. However, at the same time it is very natural that the matrimonial partners realize that they cannot take the institution of marriage ahead together and upon such realization, they have the option of either making allegations as provided under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act or to take the mature decision of walking apart in a peaceful and dignified manner. The legislature, in its own wisdom, added Section 13-B to the Hindu Marriage Act with a clear intention that the matrimony, if at all, has to be exited due to imbalance between the partners, it shall be done in a dignified manner and not necessarily by casting imputation or by creating an acrimony between the partners. Section 13-B is like a safety outlet for the partners, none of whom can be blamed as marriage was a joint endeavour, and therefore upon its failure it is their joint responsibility to come out of it in a dignified manner. 11. It has become a practice that whenever the spouses wish to part ways, they often choose to level allegations against each other and pursue such allegations, which are fueled by their own egos and perspectives. In order to avoid such confrontations and poisoning of minds, the legislature, in its own wisdom, enacted a provision under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, which is not only laudable but also gives a way to a parting couple to act in a mature manner by agreeing to disagree to live together, in a harmonious manner, which in turn would be in the interest of both the families and the children or any person connected with the matrimony in question. 12. This Court is of the firm view that once such a laudable legislative exercise has been done and the provisions like Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act have been brought in, the objective is to establish a peaceful society and also to give an option to the couples to amicably settle their dispute, even if they decided to not live together. Once such an objective is fulfilled by virtue of statutory provision of Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, then it cannot be attached with any kind of strings by the courts, which could again dissuade the couples from opting for an amicable solution and resultantly would lead to continue of breach the matrimonial peace, without getting a way out. If the policymakers, in their own wisdom, provide protection for women by offering them some kind of preference or preservation through public employment, then it is for the purpose of stabilizing the wife/women in the relationship. The legislature realized that in the Indian perspective, when a majority of the women in the Indian society walk out a marriage, they have to carry with themselves some amount of discomfort and non-cooperation from the society including their own parents and relatives. The policymakers, in their own wisdom, promulgated a policy for providing such benefits to a divorcee woman, who ordinarily, in the Indian perspective, would already be suffering the fangs of separation and divorce, which could be smothered and some kind of protection can be given by, enabling her reinstatement, by way of public employment, to stabilize her future and also to enable her to earn own livelihood with dignity. 13. Any kind of restriction on such welfare policy of the State by the Courts only for the reason that the divorce has been granted on count of mutual consent under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, is not a correct stance of law. The dignity of a woman has to be kept at the highest pedestal by the policymakers as well as by the Courts. Thus, merely because divorce has been obtained under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act by the mutual consent and a mature woman understands that the institution of marriage between two individuals has failed, it does not mean that she needs to be deprived of her constitutional rights regarding public employment. The benefit of employment is granted to a single woman, as she is more vulnerable to the societal pressure, it would be detrimental to the cause of her protection, which is high in the mind of the policymakers and legislature. The ultimate goal shall be to ensure an effective implementation of the welfare policies in the interest of the concerned class and majority shall not be made to suffer because of few. 14. The ultimate goal shall be to ensure an effective implementation of the welfare policies in the interest of the concerned class and majority shall not be made to suffer because of few. 14. Thus, the impugned order dated 05.09.2023 passed by the Family Court, Additional District Judge, Begun, District Chittorgarh suffers from an infirmity in directing that the appellant is not entitled to the benefit of being under single lady/divorcee category, while recording that there is no collusion between the parties. Thus, while upholding the impugned order regarding the grant of divorce under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, the direction that the appellant shall not be entitled for the public employment under the divorcee category, is quashed and set aside. 15. It is made clear that the appellant shall be entitled for all the benefits arising out her status of being a divorcee. It is further made clear that in case at any point in time, any court while dealing with the matrimonial cases, realizes that there is collusion between the parties or some kind of fraud is being played in the name of public employment under the garb of divorce, then the courts shall be free to examine the same and record a categorical finding to the effect before concluding that the lady is not entitled for divorce and consequential employment. It is also made clear that any kind of character assassination or any kind of assessment qua her morality, shall not be carried out to deprive her of any kind of protective benefits of divorce as it is not called for to be done in a family court for such purpose, particularly when Section 13-B and 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act are lawful propositions for the purpose of public employment for the divorcee lady. 15.1 However, it is further made clear that it shall be open for the Family Courts to reject an application made under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act if it established that the same is a result of collusion and fraud by the parties. 16. In view of the above, the appeal is disposed of.