Swatanter Kumar, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 16.9.1998 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ambala.

2. The appellant Balwinder Singh was married to respondent No. 1 Raj Rani on 26.2.1993 at Chandigarh according to Hindu rites. This marriage between the parties began on unhappy note and the differences arose between them right at the initial stage. These differences were so serious that the husband filed a petition for divorce on 611.1993 on the ground of cruelty and desertion. On 17.11.1994; an ex parte decree was passed against the wife. On 30.6.1994, the wife filed an application for setting aside the ex parte decree, on which issues were framed and the decree was set aside on 10.9.1997. The petition was, thus, contested by the wife on merit and ultimately the petition was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ambala, vide impugned judgment and decree, which has been assailed in this appeal. It may be noticed here that during the pendency of the petition, an injunction order was passed against the husband on 1.7.1994 restraining him from conducting another marriage. The husband took up a plea that he was married on 10.4.1994 for second time but the learned Additional District Judge came to the conclusion that this plea was not correct and the second marriage was solemnised on or about 12.7.1994 and punished the husband by awarding him detention in the civil imprisonment for a term of two months under the provisions of Order 39, Rule 2-A of the Code of Civil Procedure vide order dated 16.9.1998, which has also been assailed before this Court.

3. During the present appeal, operation of the impugned judgment dated 16.9.1998 was stayed by the Division Bench of this Court.

4. The parties were directed to appear in person, vide order dated 11.3.1999. They appeared in person and seriously considered the matter in relation to continuation of their matrimonial life or otherwise. After detailed discussions and negotiations between the parties, the parties took time on various occasions to finalise their compromise to put an end to the agony which the parties were suffering, more particulary the wife and minor daughter, who was born out of this wedlock on 12.1.1994. On 19/20.1.2000, the parties filed application for amendment and conversion of the proceedings into a petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act and prayed for a decree of divorce to be granted to them on mutual consent and as per the terms and conditions arrived at between them and placed on record vide Annexure A-1. Statement of the parties were recorded by the Court on 21.1.2000 itself in presence of the Counsel for the parties and they reiterated the contents of their application and the compromise.

5. The application for amendment and conversion need to be allowed for the reason that substantive relief of the proceedings would still continue to be the same and mud-slinging between the parties would be prevented. As there was no objection and in fact both the parties in their statement on oath prayed for amendment/conversion of the proceedings to be allowed, the Court would have no hesitation in allowing the said application.

6. Resultantly, the application is allowed and petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act with the terms and conditions of the compromise, Annexure A-1, are taken on record.

7. From the statements of the parties, it is clear that the marriage between the parties has irretrievably broken down and there is no possibility of any reconciliation between the parties. The husband had made such allegations against his wife which itself is sufficient ground for accepting the request of the wife for dissolving the marriage by mutual consent. No fruitful purpose would be served by continuing this litigation, which has already been on between the parties for the last more than 7 years. The minor daughter is being exposed to an environment which has been adversely affecting her growth and welfare. Besides mutual consent of the parties for dissolving the marriage, the Court has to look into attending circumstances, which have resulted in a total deadlock of matrimonial relationship between the parties. If the result of such consideration is a complete breakdown of marriage with no possibility of reconciliation, it would be appropriate to release the parties from the legal and religious point of marriage, as their relationship is nothing but is a dead wood for the institution of the marriage.

8. Since 1993 itself, the parties have not lived together. Various attempts of reconciliation on different levels have failed. The parties have no respect for each other and the question of compatibility between them is far from reality. The appeal itself has been pending for the last one year and the parties have pondered over again and again on various questions relating to continuation of their matrimonial relationship or otherwise. The parties have appeared before the Court time and again. There would be substantial compliance to the provisions of Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act in the circumstances of the case. In any case, a period of more than six months has already elapsed when the parties started negotiating their settlement in this regard.

9. At this stage, it may be appropriate to refer to the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court of India and the judgments of this Court in the cases titled as Krishna v. Ashwani Kumar, 1997 (1) HLR 241; Ashok Hurra v. Rupa Bipin Zaveri, 1997 (1) HLR 621; and Jagdeep Kamra v. Dipender Singh Kamra, CR 3724 of 1997, decided on 10.3.1998 by P & H (HC). where after discussing the law in detail, it was stated that such cases are required to be dealt with a sympathetic consideration, respect for institution of marriage but within the four corners of the law. Thus, the petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act is allowed and the parties would be bound by the terms and conditions contained in that petition as well as Annexure A-1 attached thereto.

10. The parties had agreed that a total consideration of Rs. 1,80,000/- would be paid to the minor daughter and the wife in settlement of all their claims with regard to maintenance, permanent alimony and Istridhan as well as in relation to the property, if any, owned and possessed by the husband and his family members. Out of this amount of Rs. 1,80,000/-, Rs. 50,000/- has been paid in cash and for the remaining amount of Rs. 1,30,000/- a cheque dated 13.4.2000 was handed over and the husband had given an undertaking to the Court, which had been accepted by the wife, that the cheque would be positively honoured on presentation. All the cases filed by the parties against each other would be dismissed as withdrawn and/ or not pursued.

11. The minor daughter would remain in the custody and guardianship of the wife and the husband would have no visiting rights. The husband had agreed to return the agreed items of dowry to the wife within 15 days from the order. Further husband voluntarily agreed, in addition to the settled terms/that if he would be in a position and by that time the wife would not remarry, he would participate in the marriage of the daughter and may even contribute some money on the occasion of her marriage. All allegations made in the petition and otherwise against each other by the respective parties shall be deemed to have been withdrawn and struck off from the judicial record.

12. Keeping in view the interest of the minor daughter as well as the facts and circumstances of this case, it is a fit case where the Court should exercise its powers to put an end to the bitter litigation between the parties without any fruitful result either way. The parties by their own conduct have not only frustrated the very purpose of their marriage but now another lady (second wife of the husband) and children from that marriage are also involved. They would definitely have to face the brunt of any order passed. I must appreciate and note the effective cooperation extended by the learned Counsel for the parties to bring the parties to an amicable settlement and for their better future.

13. Resultantly, the petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act is allowed. The marriage between the parties is hereby dissolved by a decree of divorce on the ground of mutual consent. The parties would be bound by the undertaking given by them to the Court. The judgment of the learned Additional District Judge, Ambala, dated 16.9.1998 under appeal stands set aside, as it stands substituted by a decree under Section 13-B of thepassed by this Court and by consent of the parties. The punishment imposed upon the husband under the provisions of Order 39, Rule 2-A of the Code of Civil Procedure is also hereby set aside. The petition under Section 13-B of theas well as compromise, Annexure A-1, shall form part of the decree. The parties will bear their own costs.