- (1.) This is an appeal challenging the order dated 12.10.2012 whereby the divorce petition filed by the appellant-husband under section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") has been dismissed on the ground that the respondent-wife was not present and since more than 18 months had passed after the filing of the petition jointly by the husband the wife, mutual divorce could not be granted in the absence of the respondent-wife.
(2.) We have heard Sri Krishna Ji Khare, learned counsel for the appellant. In view of the order of date passed on the order-sheet, whereby service on the sole respondent has been deemed to be sufficient, this appeal is being disposed of at this stage.
(3.) The facts leading to the filing of the petition under section 13-B of the Act for divorce by mutual consent are that after the marriage of the appellant with the respondent in the year 2006, a First Information Report was lodged by the respondent (wife) against her husband (appellant), which was registered as case crime no. 244 of 2010 under sections 498-A, 323 IPC and section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. Challenging the same, the appellant filed Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 14341 of 2010. In the said writ petition, the matter was referred to the Mediation Centre of this Court, in which an amicable settlement was arrived at between the parties on 1.5.2011. However, in the meantime, the said Criminal Misc. Writ Petition was dismissed in default, in which a restoration/recall application was filed. Thereafter, on 8.7.2013, the order dismissing the Criminal Misc. Writ Petition no. 14314 of 2010 in default was recalled and the writ petition was allowed with the following order:- "Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned A.G.A. for the State. Learned counsel for the parties point out that the dispute has been resolved between the parties and there is a report of the mediation centre dated 8.5.2011 to this effect. From the perusal of the mediation report, it appears that the petitioners and respondent no. 3 have amicably settled their dispute and they have decided to live separately. The respondent no. 3 is no more interested in prosecuting the petitioners in the present case arising out of Case Crime No. 2442 of 2010 under Sections 498-A, 323 I.P.C. and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Baradari, District Bareilly. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed and the criminal proceedings arising out of the FIR dated 26.7.2010 registered at Case Crime No. 2442 of 2010 under Sections 498-A, 323 I.P.C. and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Baradari, District Bareilly are hereby quashed. The interim order, if any, stands confirmed.";