KESHOTE, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material available on the record.
(2.) THIS appeal under Section 36 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 (hereinafter shall be referred to as `the Act, 1869') read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is directed against the order, dated 24. 8. 2004 of the learned Family Court No. 1, Jaipur. Under the impugned order the learned Family Court allowed the application filed by the respondent wife and directed to husband to pay to her Rs. 1000/- per month maintenance allowance; Rs. 1000/- for litigation expenses and Rs. 300/- for expenses towards her appearance in the court for each date to and fro Ajmer-Jaipur with one assistant. During the pendency of the appeal the parties have settled their dispute and agreed to get their marriage dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent; accordingly they filed a joint application under Section 10-A of the Act, 1869. The compromise entered into between the parties have been attested by the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) under the directions of the Court. Section 10-A of the Act, 1869 makes a provision for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent. It provides that subject to the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder, a petition for dissolution of marriage may be presented to the District Court by both the parties to the marriage together whether such marriage was solemnized before and after commencement of the Indian Divorce (Amendment) Act, 2001 on the ground that they have been living separately for a period of two years or more, that they have not been able to live together and they have mutually agreed that the marriage should be dissolved. The parties were called for reconciliation on 7th of February, 2005. We talked to both of them but either of them was not ready to live together. The matter was taken up on 14th of February, 2005 and then on 28. 2. 2005 but either of the parties was not agreed to live together. On 28. 2. 2005 before the court they made a statement that they have entered into the compromise and decided to get their marriage dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent and this application has been filed. The marriage of the appellant husband and the respondent wife was solemnized on 5. 11. 99 as per the Christian customs and rites at Ajmer. The appellant husband, on 25. 2. 2003, moved a petition under Section 10 (u) (10) read with Section 14 of the Act, 1869 before the Family Court, No. 1, Jaipur City, Jaipur; the matter is pending.
(3.) THE Family Court passed the order of maintenance allowance in favour of the wife respondent and that has been challenged in this appeal. THE appellant husband and the respondent wife are living separately for a period of more than two years. Both stated on oath that there had been no cohabitation between them for a period of two years. Having gone through the material available on the record we are satisfied that there is no coercion or mala fide between the parties in seeking the divorce by mutual consent. The relation between the parties have become so strained that it is not possible for both of them to live together. The averments made in the petition appear to be true and correct and the prayer made by them deserves to be granted. Accordingly the application filed by the parties under Section 10-A of the Act, 1869 is allowed; their marriage solemnized on 5. 11. 1999 at Ajmer is dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent. Subject to the terms and conditions agreed upon by them in the application aforesaid. ;