Dr. M.G. Viji vs P.T. Omana on 22 August, 1998
4. As pointed out earlier the petition envisaged under Section 13-B has to be preferred before the District Court. Though in the present case the petition for the dissolution of marriage was originally sought under Section 13(ia) and (iii) it was dismissed by the Court below. Both parties are before us now in the appeal filed by the husband. It is in that appeal the joint petition praying for decree by mutual consent has been filed. What we see here is that the contest between the parties had been withdrawn and a compromise petition seeking for a decree by mutual consent was sought for. No doubt this is a smaller relief than the relief originally framed. This is a relief which is always existing for the parties to invoke at any point of time. A Division Bench of this Court in Karthikeyan & Sarojini, 1998 (1) KLT164, after placing reliance on the decision of the Madras High Court in Dr. H.T. Vira Reddi v. Kistamma, AIR 1969 Madras 235, has allowed a decree for judicial separation under Section 13-A of the Act while dealing with an appeal against the order of the Court below dismissing, a petition under Section 13(A) of the Act. We are inclined to apply the same course in the circumstances of this case and to hold that the petition before this Appellate Court is competent. A similar view we have taken in the judgment in M.F.A. No. 1171 of 1997 dated 1.6.1998.