IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA FAO No. 121 of 2019 Date of decision: 24.09.2025. Sushil Kumar. …Appellant versus Monika …Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the appellant : Mr. Ajay Chandel, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. Vinod Thakur, Advocate. Satyen Vaidya, Judge (oral): CMP No. /2025 The parties have jointly moved to this Court by way of an application under Order 23 Rule 3 of the CPC by presenting the application in the Court during the course of hearing of the matter today. The application be registered. 2. The application is supported by the respective affidavits of both the parties. It has been averred in the application that the parties have not been residing and living together since 2016 due to temperamental 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? -2- differences. Despite efforts, they have not been able to reconcile. Therefore, both of them have decided peacefully and voluntarily to part ways by getting their marriage dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent. 3. The terms of the compromise, as per averments made in the application have been reduced into writing and a deed of compromise has also been annexed along with the application. 4. As per terms of the settlement, the husband Sushil Kumar had agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 13,00,000/- to respondent Ms. Monika towards permanent alimony and it has further been agreed between both the parties that hereafter, they will not pursue or prosecute legal proceedings against each other and the alimony so agreed to be paid by the husband to the wife, shall be in satisfaction of her all past, present and future claims. 5. The statements of the parties have separately recorded today in the Court. The amount of Rs. 13,00,000/- as permanent alimony has been paid by the husband Sushil Kumar to the wife Ms. Monika by way of Demand Draft No.913239 of Punjab National Bank. -3- FAO No. 121 of 2019 6. The instant appeal has been filed by the husband against the judgment and decree dated 12.12.2018, passed by the learned Additional District Judge-II, Mandi in HMA No. 51 of 2015, whereby the petition of the husband seeking divorce has been dismissed. 7. There is no denial of the fact that the parties are not residing together for the last about ten years. In fact, they have resided together after the marriage only for a period of about 8-9 months. The lack of compatibility has forced them to part ways peacefully and mutually. 8. Keeping in view the entirety of facts and circumstances, the prayer made in the application filed today is allowed. The compromise effected between the parties is taken on record as Ext. C-1. The instant proceedings are converted to one under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act. The marriage between the parties hereto is ordered to be dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent, after condoning the period required under the aforesaid provision for the reason that the parties are -4- already separated for last about ten years and there is no chance of change of their respective stands. 9. Accordingly, the instant appeal is disposed of. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. The deed of compromise Ext. C-1 shall form part of this order. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. Record be sent back forthwith. (Satyen Vaidya) 24th September, 2025 Judge (kck)