_ Mr, Sukesh Deane Age: 44 yrs. Occu,— sen R/at~ 9369- As gaq Unit Number 402, aq te 34215 ~ 3885, King ate nay ol AND Mrs. Priyanka Sukesh Age- 42 yrs. Oceu, nt R/at — 1103, Sandan ; r, d Building e/ Gipen Valley, Wanowar, “ing, phe -411 040,00 amin © Petition for divorce by mutual _consent of us.13-B of Hindu Marriage Act. 1955. Appearance : Shri, Pushkar Durge, Smt. Devika Menon and Shri.$.D.Pansare, Advocates for the Petitioner nos. 1 and 2. «Petitioner no.2 : JUDGMENT ( Delivered on : 20" January, 2020 ) 1. The petitioners filed this petition for divorce by mutual consent u/sec.13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter in short referred to as “the H.M.Act’). scammed Cameree ppna. 733/2018 1120023972019 : . Mi rise © the petition in brief are as 2. The facts give! ony ‘That, the marria between the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 hat, : ken place on 91/12/2001 &t New Delhi according fas taken wi P After the marriage, the petitioner monies 0.1 at Hindu rites and cere! if gether at the house of petitioner 1 nos.1 and 2 resided (0! me of t re are (WO he Petitioner no.2 is Ms. Priyanka daughters namely Kashish, bor on 05/12/2009 from the said the custody of petitioner 0-2 Pune. The maiden na Ajitkumar Diwan. The on 16/01/2005 and Krisha, Porm wedlock, who are presently !) ‘ Priyanka. 3. Since May 2016 due 0 differences of opinion and incompatibility of temperament, both the petitioners have not been able to live together as the husband and wife so they are residing separately. The petitioners made efforts for reconciliation but failed. Therefore, both the petitioners have mutually agreed to dissolve their marriage. Hence, they jointly and voluntarily filed the present petition for divorce by mutual consent. 4. I have heard to both the petitioner no. 1 and 2 in person and their advocate Shri. Sarathi Pansare and made necessary inquiry with them so as to satisfy about the divorce by mutual consent scammed Camere4 the time of presenting the petition and continu’ f divorce by mutual 6 U/sec.13-B of the H.M. Act, a decree © consent can be granted when the Court is satisfied that - (i) marriage having been solemnized betwee” the parties ; (ii) the ir before Parties have been living separately for More than a yeal live together at presenting the petition ; (iii) they were not able to li e to live apart ; (iv) they had mutually agreed to dissolve the marriage before or the averments made at the time the petition was presented ; (v) c.23 are fulfilled and in the petition are true and conditions w/se (vi) consent has not been obtained by force, fraud or undue influence. 7. In view of the above said necessary ingredients, now | have to consider the petition and evidence on record. Petitioner nos. 1 scammed Camere4 P.ENO. 733/2019 MHrci20023972019 ate and 2 have submitted ortificate OF Registration of Marriage at Exh.11 and Marriage PHO™S™PH at Exh.12 in support of solemnization of their marriag® OM Which it appears that their marriage was solemnized 0 01/12/2001 at New Delhi according to Hindu rites and ceremomies: This petition was filed. by petitioners on 12/07/2019. ThE period of six months is completed after filing of the peution on 11/01/2020. From the petition and the affidavits of the petitioner nos.1 and 2 at Exhs.9 and 10, it seems that both the petitioners are husband and wife and they are living separately from May 206 i.e. since last more than three years and one month prior to the presentation of this petition. 8. Both the petitioners were sent to Marriage Counsellor Smt. V. S. Athavale, who has interviewed them and submitted the yi report as per Exh.8. In this report, it is mentioned that reconciliation is not possible between the petitioners and they have decided to dissolve their marriage by mutual consent. The petitioner nos.1 and 2 have submitted purshis at Exh.14 in respect of the compliance of terms and conditions mentioned in Exh.1. 9. The petitioner nos. 1 and 2 lastly resided together at Pune and the petitione: no.1 Priyzaka presently residing at Pune a’ scammed CamereNu and incompatibility of their temperame™” there cannot and 2 cannot live together as husband "4 peat satisfied be happy married life between them. 5° co ened 35 that the marriage between the petition nas beet ~ and the per the Hindu religious rites, ceremomi®® Ee ee are averments made in the petition are t'™° ree wee 3 of he affirmative. entitled to a decree of divorce by mut¥#! the HIM. Act. Hence, I answer the Pott NOT * allowed 11. Consequently the petition is Ses ae Therefore, I proceed to pass the followin order - ORDER 1. The joint petition is allowed. ] Mr, Sukesh 2. The marriage betwe' titioner NO- ; CO eae 0.2 Mrs. Priyanka Sukesh Prempal Ganda and petitione! N= 7 Ganda (Maiden Name - Ms. Pry Ajitkumar Diwan) solemnized on 01/12/2001 is hereby dissolved by a decree of divorce u/sec.13-B of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 with effect from the date of the decree 3. Terms and Conditions mentioned in petition Exh.1 shall form the part and parcel of the decree scammed CamereXerox Compaired by Suparintencent Family Court, Pune scammed Camere