NAVITA SINGH, J. - (1.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant submits that he could not, despite effort on his part, lay hands on the medico -legal report dated 20.05.2010 and copy of complaint filed by the parties against their neighbour on 11.02.2011.
(2.) ARGUMENTS in the appeal have been heard. Since the main appeal has been heard, the prayer for condonation of delay of 206 days in filing the appeal is now academic. Therefore, for the reasons set out in the application i.e. CM No. 25407 -CII of 2012, the same is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is condoned, as prayed for. This appeal is preferred by the appellant - wife against the judgment and decree dated 13.12.2011 as she felt aggrieved by the said decree whereby the marriage between the parties was dissolved on a petition filed under Section 13 -B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (Act - for short).
(3.) THE respondent as petitioner No. 1 and the appellant as petitioner No. 2 filed a joint petition under Section 13 -B of the Act for dissolution of their marriage, which was solemnized on 27.04.1993, on the ground that there were temperamental differences between them and they could not pull along and were already living separately since 25.04.2009. Joint statement of the parties at the first motion was recorded on 09.06.2011 and the matter was adjourned to 13.12.2011 giving them a period of six months to re -think. At the time of second motion, i.e. on the date of decree, both the parties again appeared and made a joint statement to the same effect as before and wanted their marriage to be dissolved by mutual consent. The impugned decree was accordingly passed. However, later on, the wife filed this appeal after considerable delay alleging that she had not voluntarily applied for divorce by mutual consent. Rather her signatures were obtained by misrepresentation. The respondent had told her that her signatures were required due to some property matter in the Court and on asking of her husband, i.e. the respondent, she signed certain documents in the chamber of a lawyer and also signed some papers before the Court below. The averment in the petition that the parties had been living separately since 25.04.2009 was false because till April, 2012, they were living together. ;