SWATANTER KUMAR, J.

1. Sharanjit Singh was married to Satwant Kaur according to Sikh Rites at Patiala on 19. 2. 1992.

Only for early months of their marriage they lived together and thereafter serious differences arose between the husband and wife and they started living separately from each other in September, 1992 itself. From this marriage Ms. Pawandeep Kaur was born on 17. 12. 1992.

Thereafter the parties have never lived together. In the year 1993 itself the husband filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, praying for dissolution of their marriage by a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion.

This petition was dismissed by the learned Trial Court and an appeal before this Court was filed being F. A. O. No. 56-M of 1997 by the husband. Application for maintenance was also filed by the wife who is bringing up the minor children for all this time.

2. Reconciliation efforts failed at all levels and both the parties were insisting upon parting Company from each other for good.

3. On the joint request of the parties an application under Order 6, Rule 17, C. P. C. was filed to amend the original petition into a petition under Section 13-B of the Act, praying for dissolution of the marriage on the ground of mutual consent. Vide order dated 22. 9. 1999 the application was allowed and amendment permitted to relate back to the institution of the original petition.

4. Statements of the parties were recorded in Court on 22. 9. 1999 itself. Both the parties, i. e.

petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 admitted their signatures on petition under Section 13-B of the Act at Marks A and B respectively, which was exhibited as Ex. C. Affidavit in support there of was signed by the respective parties at Marks Al and B l respectively.

5. In their statements the parties stated that alt attempts for reconciliation have failed and they have reached a point in their married life that they cannot settle with each other and at no cost would like to reconcile their matrimonial differences. A sum of Rs. 2,75,000/- was paid by the husband to the wife towards full and final settlement of all claims of maintenance, permanent alimony and maintenance of the child. This amount was paid on different dates in Court and the same was accepted by the wife. Parties agree that all their litigation criminal and civil should come to an end and their marriage should be dissolved. As agreed between the parties, out of the sum of Rs. 2,75,000/-, Rs. 1,15,000/- was to be deposited in the name of minor Pawanjeet Kaur, the interest whereof had to accrue in favour of the mother. This amount was strictly to be used for the welfare and good upbringing of the minor child, the remaining amount of Rs. 1,60,000/was the exclusive property of the wife which she could use for whatever purpose and in whatever manner she considered it fit and proper.

6. From the above narrated facts it is clear that since 1992 the marriage between the parties has broken down. In other words, the marriage has irretrievably broken down and there is no chance of reconciliation and resettlement of the matrimonial home between the parties. Furthermore, the question of any compatibility between the parties towards the institution of marriage is a dead thought. I see no reason to let the litigation between the parties continue for rest of their life specially when they have been litigating in different Courts for different causes for the last 7 years. The child is being produced often in Courts, who watches the exchange of rude comments between her parents. This is bound to have unhealthy effect on the growth and personality of the child. Unwilling partners can hardly be made to stay together when they are bent upon dissolving the marriage between them.

7. The purpose of introducing Section 13-B of the Act is certainly to liberalise passing of a decree of divorce on the ground of mutual consent between the two unwilling partners to the marriage, whose marriage has irretrievably broken down and has become a persistent irritant to their day-to-day life. All these ingredients are patently satisfied in this case, it must be noticed at this stage that various attempts for reconciliation were made by this Court but parties insisted upon dissolution of marriage rather than its rehabilitation. Much longer period than six months have elapsed when the parties decided to dissolve their marriage. The present appeal itself has been pending for the last more than two years with no effective results to either of the parties.

There is substantial compliance to the provisions of Section 13-B of the Act as amendment has been permitted to relate back to the institution of the petition, i. e. 1993. Reference in this regard can be made to the cases of Ashok Hurra v. Rupa Bipin Zaveri, 1997 (1) All India Hindu Law Reporter 621 =1 (1997) DMC 491 (SC); Chandrakala Menon v. Capt Vipin Menon, 1993 (1) All India Hindu Law Reporter 270-1 (1993) DMC 135 (SC); Sureshta Devi v. Om Parkash, 1991 (1)

All India Hindu Law Reporter 467=1 (1991) DMC 313 (SC); Gurdhiana Singh v. Gurmeet Kaur, (1996-3) 114 PLR 648; Krishna Kumari v. Ashwani Kumar, (1996-3) 114 PLR 414 [LQ/PunjHC/1996/1067] -11 (1997)

DMC 616; Bhagirathv. Rani, 1997 (1) All India Hindu Law Reporter 417; Naveen Bansal v.

Seetna Bansal, 1995 All India Hindu Law Reporter529;jai Bhagwan v. Sushila @ Chanda, 1995 (2) All India Hindu Law Reporter 531; Niranjan Kutnarv. Veena Rani, 1995 (1) All India Hindu Law Reporter 123; Suresh Kumar Batra v. Varsha Batra, 1994 (2) All India Hindu Law Reporter 510=1 (1995) DMC 495 [LQ/PunjHC/1994/584] ; Roopa Reddy v. Prabhakar Reddy, 1993 (2) All India Hindu Law Reporter 334=11 (1993) DMC 274 [LQ/DelHC/1991/633] ; Hemant Kumar Vinod Chandra Sukhadia v. Paruben, 1992 (2) All India Hindu Law Reporter 382; and Dhankit Vadra v. Beena Vadra, AIR 1990 Delhi 146.

8. For the reasons aforestated I would prefer to allow the petition and dissolve the marriage between the parties by a decree of divorce on the ground of mutual consent. All the allegations made by the parties against each other in the original petition shall be deemed to have been withdrawn. Parties would be bound by the terms and conditions in Ex. C and more particularly recorded in this order. The wife shall create fixed deposit receipts (FDRs) in terms of the order and shall not utilise the principal amount except when the minor child Ms. Pawanjeet Kaur attains the age of 21 years or married, whichever is earlier. All the civil and criminal litigation between the parties pending in any Court under the jurisdiction of the Court shall be deemed to have been withdrawn and/or settled in accordance with law as per the settlement of the parties.

This petition is accordingly allowed. Ex. C shall form part of the decree, decree be drawn in terms thereof. There shall be no order as to costs.