ORDER
N.Y. Hanumanthappa, J.
1. Heard, CMP No.26305 of 1998, filed under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC, is allowed.
2. Both the parties filed compromise petition in CMP No.1743 of 1999 requesting the Court to grant decree of divorce by consent. Few facts that are necessary fordisposing of this appeal arc, Paresh Shah and Vyjayantimala were married on 16-4-1994 as per the provisions of the Special Marriage Act. 1954. They set up their marital home at H.No.7112/26, Cement Building, Kalasiguda, Secundcrabad, along with the parents and other family members of the appellant-husband. According to the respondent-wife, she married the appellant against her wish and under compulsion of her parents. The marriage between the parties is an arranged one. The respondent stated that she was earlier engaged to a better person, and though she spent her time with that gentleman in Gujarat, she had cancelled the engagement. According to the appellant, the respondent failed to carry out the marital obligations, and on 10-12-1994, the respondent abused and harassed him. On 2-2-1995, the respondent left the company of her husband. The appellant is employed in Viceroy Hotel. The respondent ill-treated the appellant saying that he has got illicit relationship with one of his colleague working in Viceroy Hotel. The case of the respondent before the Court below in her application, filed under Section 27(1)(d) of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 was she admitted the marriage between the parties. She denied that she ill-treated her husband. She also denied that she connected the appellant to any illicit relationship with his colleague working in Viceroy Hotel and that she is responsible for his losing his job. She stated that the appellant used to treat her cruelly and that he used to come home late in the nights in a drunken condition and behave cruelly without any love and affection. She stated that at the time of marriage her parents gave 10 tulas of gold and Rs. 1,20,000/- worth articles. Despite this, the appellant demanded for bringing more dowry from her parents and when she refused, she was necked out by the appellant from the house. After hearing both the sides and on recording the evidence, the Court below by its order dated 12-9-1997 rejected the petition on the ground that the appellant-husband failed to prove the alleged cruelty bythe respondent-wife against him. Hence, he filed the appeal. During the pendency of the appeal, as mentioned earlier, both the parties have filed compromise petition. The relevant portion of the compromise memo, filed by the appellant reads as under:
'....it is decided by the elders and agreed by both of us that we should get our marriage dissolved by obtaining a decree of divorce from the Court as soon as possible. It is also decided and agreed by both of us that the custody of our minor son Mayur shall be with her for ever with all the rights on him as his mother and that she is responsible for his up keep and welfare. Further, under the settlement, I am required to pay an amount of Rs.3,50,000/- to the respondent towards the full and final settlement of all her claims against me and my other family members including the respondent's and her son Mayur's past and future maintenance and the alimony etc., and also her claims for the return of any amounts or property of any kind from me. Accordingly, I paid the said amount in full by way of Demand Draft No.496568 dated 27-10-1998 drawn on Canara Bank - M.G. Road, Secunderabad. In pursuance of the said settlement effected by the elders and in pursuance of the payments made by me as stated above, she agreed to withdraw from the prosecution of CC No.58 of 1996 in the Court of 22nd Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. On such terms the matter is settled and we both are advised to approach the Hon'ble Court by filing a joint petition in this appeal seeking dissolution of marriage and granting divorce by mutual consent with immediate effect'.
The relevant portion of the compromise memo, filed by the respondent, reads as follows:
'.....it is decided by the elders and agreed by both of us that we should get ourmarriage dissolved by obtaining a decree of divorce from the Court as soon as possible. It is also decided and agreed by both of us that the custody of our minor son Mayur shall be with me for ever with all the rights on him as his mother and that I am responsible for his upkeep and welfare. Further, under the settlement the respondent is required to pay an amount of Rs.3,50,000/- to me towards the full and final settlement of all my claims against him and his other family members including myself and my son Mayur's past and future maintenance and the alimony etc., and also my claims for the return of any amounts or property of any kind (from him. Accordingly, he paid the said amount in full by way of Demand Draft No.496568 dated 27-10-5998 drawn on Canara Bank - M.G. Road, Secunderabad. In pursuance of the said settlement effected by the elders and in pursuance of the payments made by him as stated above, I agree to withdraw from the prosecution of CC No.58 of 1996 in the Court of 22nd Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, Hyderabad. On such terms the matter is settled and we both are advised to approach the Hon'ble Court by filing a joint petition in this appeal seeking dissolution of marriage and granting divorce by mutual consent with immediate effect'.
From the above compromise memos, filed by both the parties, it is clear that both are educated and in a position to understand the concept of marriage and their responsibility towards each of them as husband and wife. But their feelings, mal-adjustment and temperament, made their lives miserable and to pull on as husband and wife an impossibility. For them, divorce is a blessing than to continue as husband and wife in miserable circumstances. Insofar as decree of divorce by consent is concerned, a Division Bench of Karnataka High Court in the case of RoopaReddy v. Prahhakar Reddy, 11 (1993) DMC 274, in which one of us (N.Y. Hanumanthappa, J.) was a member, discussed in detail the provisions relating to divorce by consent, particularly Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage (Amendment) Act, 1976. The decision of the Supreme Court in Smt. Saroj Rani v. Sudarshan Kumar Chadha reported in : [1985]1SCR303 and the decisions of various other High Courts on the above point was referred to in the judgment.
3. In the background of the circumstances explained in the case, the request made by both the parties to grant decree of divorce by consent, has to be accepted so that the parties can spend their remaining period of life with contentment instead of compelling them to lead a miserable life without any constructive purpose.
4. In the result, the application filed by both the parties is allowed, and the judgment passed by the Court below is set aside. The decree of divorce by mutual consent is ordered. Since it is settled that the child born to these people shall be in the custody of the respondent-mother, we order that the child Mayur, aged three years, shall continue to be in the custody of the mother, as has been agreed by the parties in the settlement. Now it is the responsibility of the mother-respondent to bring up the child and take care of his welfare.
5. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs.