Exclusive HOLI Discounts!
Get Courses and Combos at Upto 50% OFF!
Upgrad
LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Abhinav (Manager)     03 November 2013

Wife filed three divorce cases

 

Hi,

 

I was married in Jan 2010 in Meerut UP.My wife (Anita, name changed) lived with me for around a week in meerut  and since then she is living separately  and working in hyderabad and me in Meerut UP. Here is series of legal events

 

  • Married Jan 2010

  • dec 2010 Anita filed 498A .C/s filed by hyderabad police angst me.Under trail now

  • April 2011 Anita filed section 13 A in hyderabad to seek divorce on grounds of cruelity

  • Sep 2011 we both filed MCD u/s 13 B HMA in Meerut. Handed over streedhan and first part of compensation amount on first motion on condition that she will close 498A before final motion of 13B within six months.

  • Dec 2011 Anita withdrew section 13 A from hyderabad (which was filed prior to 13B MCD case)on grounds that 13B is filed in Meerut UP

  • After sometime of it, Anita refused to close 498a case against me in Hyderabad and asked that she needs divorce first in 13B Meerut case , after that only she will close 498a case

  • This spoiled the compromise deed that happened in section 13B suite.

  • After knowing this ,I disagreed to agree for 13B divorce until 498A is closed by her. However this is verbally told to her but not in family court's record.

  • After this , again in Nov 2012 my wife filed a new suite u/section 13 A in Hyderabad to seek divorce on grounds of cruelty.

  • In Jan 2013, I brought in notice to Hyderabad family court that since 13B MCD in Meerut  is still pending so my wife has filed the Hyderabad 13 A case with illitentions to harass me, so it was stayed by that court stating that since 13B is still pending so Section 13A can’t continue in Hyderabad.

  • April 2013, my wife's advocate appealed in 13B MCD case to dismiss this case putting allegations on me that I don’t want to settle down this case, so she wants to withdraw the 13B suite.

 

 

 

Now, I seek the following advice :

 

1.     Its very much clear from my wife's actions that she wants to get 13B dismissed, from UP so that she can trouble me in Hyderabad in 13 A HMA case with enhanced alimony. So, what steps can I take in 13B MCD case.

 

2.     Someone told me that there is a limit of 13B suite for 18 months beyond which it can’t sustain. Since its more than 2 years since it was filed in Meerut, so is it liable to be dismissed on this ground? If yes, then under what provision of law can I appeal to court to not to dismiss it ?

 

3.     Since my wife is not obeying to the compromise deed signed in 13B MCD that she had to  withdraw 498A first before the final motion of 13B and now she seeks divorce first, how safe and useful it will be for me if I first agree for divorce then to face 498A case in Hyderabad. I believe she will not close 498a case by herself after divorce. And that case is now at evidence stage for witness no. 1 complainant , my wife.

 

4.     In the worst case if under her appeal to family court Meerut, the 13B suite is dismissed by court, do I have the provision to appeal for revision to District Judge against that order and if that appeal is accepted by District Judge, then until the decision of that revision appeal, does she has the right to revoke the 13 A case in Hyderabad ?

 

I request a reply over this soon by h'able members of this forum . It will be a great help of yours as I am not getting the correct opinion till now from anyone.

 

Thanks a lot with heart in advance for your help and replies. For any query or more information from my side please reply.



Learning

 9 Replies

Abhinav (Manager)     03 November 2013

<Posting again as the text seems unreadable >

Hi,

I was married in Jan 2010 in Meerut UP.My wife (Anita, name changed) lived with me for around a week in meerut  and since then she is living separately  and working in hyderabad and me in Meerut UP. Here is series of legal events

  • Married Jan 2010
  • dec 2010 Anita filed 498A .C/s filed by hyderabad police angst me.Under trail now
  • April 2011 Anita filed section 13 A in hyderabad to seek divorce on grounds of cruelity
  • Sep 2011 we both filed MCD u/s 13 B HMA in Meerut. Handed over streedhan and first part of compensation amount on first motion on condition that she will close 498A before final motion of 13B within six months.
  • Dec 2011 Anita withdrew section 13 A from hyderabad (which was filed prior to 13B MCD case)on grounds that 13B is filed in Meerut UP
  • After sometime of it, Anita refused to close 498a case against me in Hyderabad and asked that she needs divorce first in 13B Meerut case , after that only she will close 498a case
  • This spoiled the compromise deed that happened in section 13B suite.
  • After knowing this ,I disagreed to agree for 13B divorce until 498A is closed by her. However this is verbally told to her but not in family court's record.
  • After this , again in Nov 2012 my wife filed a new suite u/section 13 A in Hyderabad to seek divorce on grounds of cruelty.
  • In Jan 2013, I brought in notice to Hyderabad family court that since 13B MCD in Meerut  is still pending so my wife has filed the Hyderabad 13 A case with illitentions to harass me, so it was stayed by that court stating that since 13B is still pending so Section 13A can’t continue in Hyderabad.
  • April 2013, my wife's advocate appealed in 13B MCD case to dismiss this case putting allegations on me that I don’t want to settle down this case, so she wants to withdraw the 13B suite.

 

Now, I seek the following advice :

1.     Its very much clear from my wife's actions that she wants to get 13B dismissed, from UP so that she can trouble me in Hyderabad in 13 A HMA case with enhanced alimony. So, what steps can I take in 13B MCD case.

2.     Someone told me that there is a limit of 13B suite for 18 months beyond which it can’t sustain. Since its more than 2 years since it was filed in Meerut, so is it liable to be dismissed on this ground? If yes, then under what provision of law can I appeal to court to not to dismiss it ?

3.     Since my wife is not obeying to the compromise deed signed in 13B MCD that she had to  withdraw 498A first before the final motion of 13B and now she seeks divorce first, how safe and useful it will be for me if I first agree for divorce then to face 498A case in Hyderabad. I believe she will not close 498a case by herself after divorce. And that case is now at evidence stage for witness no. 1 complainant , my wife.

4.     In the worst case if under her appeal to family court Meerut, the 13B suite is dismissed by court, do I have the provision to appeal for revision to District Judge against that order and if that appeal is accepted by District Judge, then until the decision of that revision appeal, does she has the right to revoke the 13 A case in Hyderabad ?

I request a reply over this soon by h'able members of this forum . It will be a great help of yours as I am not getting the correct opinion till now from anyone.

 

Thanks a lot with heart in advance for your help and replies. For any query or more information from my side please reply.

T. Kalaiselvan, Advocate (Advocate)     03 November 2013

Since your wife has already agreed to withdraw the case u/s 498a but did not do so after receiving the initial amount in the first motion of MCD, the payment to her, the evidences of returning her the streedhana properties and the MCD papers along with the dismissal order copy can be produced before the trial court conducting the 498a  case to prove that she has given a false complaint against you and based on these substantial evidences as well as her second petition for divorce on the grounds of cruelty will also prove her mentality that she is behind material motivation and black mailing spree hence has come out with false cases against you.  This way you can fight out the 498a case.  About the dismissal of MCD case, you cannot go for appeal because it is something mutual between you both hence since she withdrew from the petition it cannot be decided by the appellate court in the absence of her consent. Further you can also contest her latest divorce case and make her life miserable by not giving consent to her prayer of any sort.  In the future if there is any compromise, please make things clear about what you wanted to do to be written as conditions and then only proceed with compromise terms, okay?

1 Like

Abhinav (Manager)     03 November 2013

Respected Advocate Sir,

Thanks a lot for helping out me with your advise. I would request you to further reply for these queries as well :

 

1) If the 13B case is dissmed now, based upon her withdraw application. then in which court can I claim for the ppartial amount of alimony which is alreay paid to her and accepted by her in writng in the 13B suite. Will that amount be considered to be paid to her in the 13A case filed by her?

2) She is willing to take divorce first and not agreeing to close pending 498a case .Should I divorce her only after she closes the 498a case against me ? Or should I divorce her first as the chances are very rare that she will close the 498a against me after divorce.

3) She has lived only for 7 days with me. and she is demanding 60 lacs as alimony in 13A case. Anyhow if I sont appear in13A case then decaling me as exparty the hyderabad fmly court can grant a decree of divorce to her, That may not affect me but are there any chances that court can order me to pa her alimony also if I dont appear in 13A case ?  I dont have that much money to pay and the total alimony decided to pay in 13 b suite was 4lacs ot of which 1.5 lacs was already paid to her in first motion of 13B

4) Is there any provision in 13 B MCD suite to keep it pending even though 18 months perios has been over and even if she has given the petition to withdraw it.? Also this withdraw petition is given by her after the lapse of 6 moths period after 1st motion. Still her withdraw application for 13B suite will be considered ?

 

Please advise . Will be highly thankful

T. Kalaiselvan, Advocate (Advocate)     03 November 2013

Abhinav,

If you have paid the said amount towards the settlement as per the conditions agreed upon for MCD and the same has not gone through, you may on the basis of her receipt/acknowledgment, file a money recovery suit but before that you have to issue a legal notice to her to return the amount received by her.  The MCD case will  be automatically dismissed if she opts to withdraw the same, she cannot be compelled or forced to proceed just merely on the basis of some pre-condition or having paid an advance amount during the first motion.  In her second divorce case against you, if you remain ex-parte, you will be the loser because it will be termed as if you have accepted all her allegations against you namely cruelty and bla bla.  So it is better you attend the case, prepare a strong counter for her averments and allegations. Finally, in the counter itself you can state since you both have already decided to break up your marriage through a MCD, now there is no chance of a reunion hence you are ready to give her divorce or agree to dissolve the marriage by a decree of divorce provided she deletes her allegations against you in her petition and also that since it was she who had opted for divorce and left her the matrimonial home on her own without any valid reason, she is not eligible for any amount towards maintenance or alimony however, you are ready to pay the balance amount as was agreed upon earlier in the withdrawn MCD case provided she withdraws the false 498a case against you which is pending before some other court.

This is how you may contest the case;

With regards - Advocate Kalaiselvan, Vellore, Ph: +919443441062

Adv. Chandrasekhar (Advocate)     03 November 2013

forget.

3. In Section 13-B maintenance, you paid 1.5 lakhs. You can recover them by filing a civil suit. If you are not recovering, then also the settlement copy and payment of Rs.1.5 lakhs has to be brought on the record in Section 498-A case as well as in contesting divorce petition. This payment of 1.5 lakhs will help you to show your bonafide intentions and also your financial capacity.

4. In the contested divorce case, you deny the allegations of cruelty but pray the court to grant divorce on the ground that how a false Section 498-A case was filed against you and also how you were betrayed in Sectin 13-B. Once, divorce is granted, she may go for permanent alimony. As she is working and also in the settlement she has already drawn Rs.1.5 lakhs and the settlement agreed upon was only for 4 lakhs, the court may not grant much of money as permanent alimony.

FINALLY, I THINK HAD YOU NOT INSISTED HER TO WITHDRAW SECTION 498-A CASE BEFORE MUTUAL CONSENT DIVORCE SECOND MOTION, YOU WOULD HAVE NOT BEEN IN THE SOUP AS YOU ARE NOW.

 regards.

Samir N (General Queries) (Business)     04 November 2013

I do not want to guide you as the issues are too inter-twined and unless the orders, if any, even though they may be simply procedural, and settlement terms, if any, are reviewed, it is not possible to give you any advice affirmatively.  To the advice given by the advocates above, without commenting on whether i agree or not, I would like to add the following:


If there was a settlement, even oral and she has gone ahead and acted on that settlement and you have done so too and always showed your willing to continue to do so, then you may be able to enforce it. All settlements come under the Indian Contract Law and the Specific Relief Act. You need to focus on that law though the settlement itself has taken birth in a Family Court proceeding. Keep this in mind.

Second, in the event that she has filed a proceeding and it was withdrawn by her or procedurally dismissed or even not pursued, there are a host of legal theories that you can use to thwart her new cases: Constructive res judicata, estoppel, latches, etc. For this, there needs to be a thorough study of all the legal cases before one can comment if these laws can be applied, or to what extent. Filing multiple cases has disadvantages and you need to exploit them.

 

Abhinav (Manager)     04 November 2013

FINALLY, I THINK HAD YOU NOT INSISTED HER TO WITHDRAW SECTION 498-A CASE BEFORE MUTUAL CONSENT DIVORCE SECOND MOTION, YOU WOULD HAVE NOT BEEN IN THE SOUP AS YOU ARE NOW.


But Adv Chandrashekhar Sir,

Only on the condition that she wiill withdraw 498a case before MCD second motion, I had agreed to sign for MCD. Now she has only changed her mind and and asking for divorce final motion before 498a case.

And since 498a case is on evidence by complainant stage, I dont think she will withdraw 498a case by herself, once she will get divorce.

I dont understand why she is doing this, anyhow if we are separating then what issue she might be facing in closing 498a case before final motion of MCD.

Also, I have made my bonafide intentions clear to family court by giving in writing that I am ready to submit the demand draft of remaing amount of settlement in the court's fiile that can be given to her on the date of final motion. Still she may not be convinced by her.

What do you suggest, is it safe to divorce her first in second motion and then to go for contesting 498a ?

Please advise sir

Thanks


radhakrishna (employee)     04 November 2013

One party cannot withdraw mutual consent divorce; High Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

 

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO.61 OF 2010

Mr.Prakash Alumal Kalandari,

Age: 42 years, Occupation: Business,

Indian Hindu, at present residing at

1/8 Five Star, Apartments 262,

Bund Garden Road,

PUNE -411 001. …Appellant

Versus

Mrs.Jahnavi Prakash Kalandari,

Age: 31 years, Occupation: Household,

Indian, Hindu, having residential address

at C-1, 14, “Ganga Heights”,

Mundhwa Road, Pinglewasti,

PUNE 411 036, at present residing

at Flat No.2, Janardhan Apartments,

Off Joggers Park, Kalyani Nagar,

PUNE 411 006. …Respondent ……

Ms. S.P. Nanavati for Appellant.

Mr. Anil Menon with Mr. S.B.Shetty for Respondent.

……

CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR AND

MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ.

JUDGMENT RESERVED ON :- MARCH 18, 2011.

JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON :- MAY 6, 2011.

JUDGMENT (Per A.M.Khanwilkar, J.) :

1. This appeal takes exception to the Judgment and Decree passed by the Family Court No.3, Pune dated 31st March, 2009 in Petition No.A-877/2007. The respondent/wife filed Petition for a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty. The said Petition was contested by the appellant/husband by filing written statement and counter claim. The appellant also prayed for custody of children.

2. The marriage between the appellant (husband) and respondent (wife) was solemnized on 12th August, 1993 at Pune as per the Hindu Vedic rites. After their marriage, they lived and cohabited together initially at Moscow, then at France and lastly at Pune. Two children are born out of the said wedlock namely; daughter Lavanya born on 22nd June, 1995 and son Rahul born on 11th January, 1999. The children are in the care and custody of the respondent mother. The parties started living separately since June, 2006. Since then, there has been no cohabitation between them.

3. During the pendency of the abovesaid Petition, the parties decided to take divorce by mutual consent. Accordingly, Consent Terms were executed and signed by both of them on 6th October, 2008, which were placed on record before the Family Court being Exhibit 71. The parties thereafter jointly filed application at Exhibit 72 to convert the Petition for divorce into joint Petition for divorce by mutual consent. As per the Consent Terms, the appellant had agreed that the custody of both the children would remain with the respondent wife. The respondent wife on the other hand, agreed to give access of both the children to the appellant during the weekend on every Sunday at the designated place and time and during the Diwali and Christmas vacations every day at the same venue and same time. Insofar as summer vacation, temporary custody of both the children was to be given to the appellant husband for the first half of the vacation when he could take the children away from Pune for vacation under intimation to the respondent wife. The parties also agreed that they would jointly take decision in respect of education and other activities of the children. The appellant agreed to pay maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month for each child with increase at the rate of 15% every two years. The respondent wife waived her claim of maintenance and alimony and her streedhan. The respondent wife also agreed to cooperate with the appellant husband for the transfer of shares, properties-movable and immovable of the respondent in Company KAPEXL Healthcare Private Limited. Besides, both parties agreed to withdraw all the criminal and civil proceedings filed against each other.

4. After filing of Consent Terms recording the above arrangement, the hearing was deferred for some time. The Advocate for the appellant thereafter withdrew his Vakalatnama and on 16th February, 2009, the appellant filed application Exhibit 80 to withdraw his consent given on the application Exhibit 71 to grant divorce by mutual consent. The sole reason mentioned in this application is that the respondent wife failed to comply with her obligation to provide access of the children to the appellant husband. He has asserted that he was therefore withdrawing his consent, keeping in mind the paramount interest and welfare of the children. The said application Exhibit 80 was resisted by the respondent wife by filing reply Exhibit 81. According to the respondent, she never refused to grant access of children to the appellant. Whereas, the appellant was arrested in connection with various criminal matters and could not avail of access during the relevant period, as he was in jail. In substance, she refuted the allegations in application Exhibit 80 that she failed to comply with any of the terms of Consent Terms executed between the parties. She has also asserted that the children were not keen on meeting the appellant and refused to accompany the appellant, which fact was known to the appellant. She also asserted that the appellant was not paying maintenance amount regularly and was in arrears. She also brought on record that after execution of the Consent Terms, she facilitated disposal of criminal cases filed against the appellant husband being case No.560/2007 for offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and case No.66/2008 for offence of theft. Besides, as per the Consent Terms, she also informed the Police Station of Hadapsar Police Station to withdraw all pending complaints against the appellant.

5. Considering the stand taken by the rival parties, the Family Court framed points for determination, amongst others, whether the application filed by the appellant Exhibit 80 to withdraw the consent recorded in the Consent Terms should be allowed and whether decree of divorce by mutual consent under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act’), should be passed.

6. Dealing with the first point, the Family Court took the view that the appellant cannot be allowed to withdraw his consent in the fact situation of the present case. The learned Judge held that the only ground pressed into service by the appellant justifying withdrawal of consent for passing decree of divorce by mutual consent, was untenable and devoid of merits. The learned Judge relying on the case law pressed into service by the parties took the view that the appellant cannot be allowed to withdraw his consent and instead, the Consent Terms executed between the parties ought to be taken on record and decree of divorce by mutual consent on the basis of the said Consent Terms was inevitable.

7. In the present appeal, the view so taken by the Family Court has been assailed. According to the appellant, since the Petition was one under Section 13B of the Act, the same could be taken forward only if both the parties continued to support the same till the date of the decree. Whereas, even if one party to the said application were to resile from or withdraw his/her consent, the Court cannot get jurisdiction to pass a decree of divorce by mutual consent. To buttress this argument, reliance is placed on the decision of the Apex Court in Smt.Sureshta Devi vs.Om Prakash reported in I (1991) DMC 313. Reliance is also placed on another decision in the case of Rupali alias Chetna vs. Sunil Data reported in AIR 2006 Punjab and Haryana 93. In that view of the matter, contends learned Counsel, the impugned decree of divorce as passed cannot be sustained in law.

8. On the other hand, Counsel for the respondent would contend that there is no infirmity either in the approach or the conclusion reached by the Family Court. The learned Counsel contends that considering the factual matrix of this case, it is more than clear that the respondent acted upon the Consent Terms executed between the parties to her prejudice, for which reason, the appellant cannot be permitted to resile from the commitment made in the Consent Terms and more particularly, because he has taken benefit of the Consent Terms. It is contended that the decree of divorce by mutual consent as passed by the Family Court in the fact situation of the present case, was inevitable.

9. To buttress this submission, learned Counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on the decisions in the case of Sudhakar Vinayak Joshi v. Sulabha Sudhakar Joshi reported in (1985) 87 Bom.L.R. 496, Rajesh Pratap Sainani v. Mrs.Bhavna Rajesh Sainani 2008 (6) Mh.L.J. 853 and Apurba Mohan Ghosh v. Manashi Ghosh AIR 1989 Cal.115.

10. After having given our anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the respective Counsel and going through the record of the case and more so, the legal position enunciated in the above said decisions, it may appear that ordinarily in a Petition filed under Section 13B of the Act, the consent and willingness of the parties to invite decree of divorce should not only be present when the Petition is filed but should also continue till the Court passes a decree on due satisfaction that the consent was voluntary and not obtained by force, fraud or undue influence. In other words, none of the party to a Petition for divorce by mutual consent under Section 13B of the Act of 1955, should withdraw the consent before passing of the decree of divorce. Further, it is open to the party to a Petition for divorce by mutual consent to unilaterally withdraw his/her consent within the specified period and including before the decree of divorce on the Petition filed under Section 13B of the Act is passed. It is not as if the consent given for filing the joint Petition for divorce by mutual consent is irrevocable. This legal position is reinforced from the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sureshta Devi (supra). In paragraphs 13 to 15 of the said reported decision, the Apex Court expounded as follows:-

“13. From the analysis of the Section, it will be apparent that the filing of the petition with mutual consent does not authorise the court to make a decree for divorce. There is a period of waiting from 6 to 18 months. This interregnum was obviously intended to give time and opportunity to the parties to reflect on their move and seek advice from relations and friends. IN this transitional period one of the parties may have a second thought and change the mind not to proceed with the petition. The spouse may not be a party to the joint motion under Sub-section (2). There is nothing in the Section which prevents such course. The Section does not provide that if there is a change of mind it should not be by one party alone, but by both. The High Courts of Bombay and Delhi have proceeded on the ground that the crucial time for giving mutual consent for divorce is the time of filing the petition and not the time when they subsequently move for divorce decrees. This appears to be untenable. At the time of the petition by mutual consent, the parties are not unaware that their petition does not by itself snap marital ties. They know that they have to take a further step to snap marital ties. Sub-section (2) of Section 13-B is clear on this point. It provides that “on the motion of both the parties …. if the petition is not withdrawn in the meantime, the court shall ….. pass a decree of divorce ….” What is significant in this provision is that there should also be mutual consent when they move the court with a request to pass a decree of divorce. Secondly, the court shall be satisfied about the bona fides and the consent of the parties. If there is no mutual consent at the time of the enquiry, the court gets no jurisdiction to make a decree for divorce. If the view is otherwise, the Court could make an enquiry and pass a divorce decree even at the instance of one of the parties and against the consent of the other. Such a decree cannot be regarded as decree by mutual consent.

14. Sub-section (2) requires the Court to hear the parties which means both the parties. If one of the parties at that stage says that “I have withdrawn my consent”, or “I am not a willing party to the divorce”, the Court cannot pass a decree of divorce by mutual consent. If the Court is held to have the power to make a decree solely based on the initial petition, it negates the whole idea of mutuality and consent for divorce. Mutual consent to the divorce is a sine qua non for passing a decree for divorce under Section 13-B. Mutual consent should continue till the divorce decree is passed. It is a positive requirement for the Court to pass a decree of divorce. “The consent must continue to decree nisi and must be valid subsisting consent when the case is heard. [See (i) Halsbury laws of England, Fourth Edition, Vol. 13 para 645; (ii) Rayden on Divorce, 12th Ed. Vol.1 P. 291 and (iii) Beales v. Beales, 1972 (2) All E.R., 667 at 674.]

15. In our view, the interpretation given to the section by the High Courts of Kerala, Punjab and Haryana and Rajasthan in the aforesaid decisions appears to be correct and we affirm that view. The decisions of the High Courts of Bombay, Delhi and Madhya Pradesh (supra) cannot be said to have laid down the law correctly and they stand overruled.”

11. The statement of law in Sureshta Devi (supra) is in the backdrop of the controversy before the Apex Court, wherein, the appellant-wife was signatory to the joint Petition for divorce by mutual consent filed in the Family Court on 8th January, 1985. Her statement was recorded by the Court on 9th January, 1985. However, on 15th January, 1985, she filed application in the Court alleging that her statement was obtained under pressure and threat of the husband. She was not allowed to see or meet her relations and to consult them before filing of the divorce petition. Nor her relations were permitted to accompany her to Court. Hence, she asserted that she does not want to be party to the petition and prayed that the same be dismissed.

12. Applying the abovesaid exposition, coupled with the fact that the appellant withdrew his consent vide Exhibit 80, it may appear as if the Family Court exceeded its jurisdiction in passing the decree of divorce by mutual consent. However, what is significant to bear in mind, is that, in the present case, the parties had not in the first instance resorted to Petition under Section 13B of the Act. Whereas, the respondent had filed Petition for a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty against the appellant/husband on 7th September, 2007. Even the appellant/husband in the written statement and counter claim filed on 9th April, 2008, prayed for dissolution of the marriage. The parties during the pendency of the said proceedings decided to compromise the matter. Accordingly, they entered into Consent Terms (Exhibit 71) which were duly executed by the parties on 6th October, 2008. Amongst the several terms agreed upon between the parties to bring quietus to the entire dispute, they chose to convert the pending Petition for divorce into a joint Petition for divorce by mutual consent and withdraw all allegations against each other. Not only that, the parties immediately acted upon the said Consent Terms. The respondent, as per the terms of Consent Terms, offered access of both the children to the appellant. It is a different matter that the access did not fructify for reasons stated by the respondent. That plea of the respondent has been accepted by the Family Court. On this finding, the sole ground stated by the appellant as justification to withdraw the consent given for decree of divorce by mutual consent becomes unavailable. In any case, the said justification, even if it were to be accepted, would, at best, be a case bordering on non- compliance of the terms and conditions of the Consent Terms.

13. Notably, in the application filed by the appellant for withdrawing his consent (Exhibit-80), no material facts have been pleaded to even remotely suggest that he had signed the Consent Terms (Exhibit-71) due to force, fraud or undue influence. In other words, the parties having acted upon the Consent Terms in part and more particularly, the respondent-wife having acted to her detriment, including having withdrawn the criminal cases filed against the appellant, the appellant cannot be allowed to extricate himself from his commitment. In such a situation, in absence of assertion that the consent was obtained by force, fraud or undue influence, by virtue of Section 23(1)(bb) read with Section 23(1)(e) of the Act of 1955, the Court would assume jurisdiction to pass a decree under Section 13B on being satisfied that a marriage was solemnized between the parties and that the averments in the petition are true. As regards the grievance of the appellant regarding non-observance of the terms and conditions of the Consent Terms, the Court can always grant liberty to the parties to pursue the remedy in that regard which will have to be decided on its own merits.

14. Be that as it may, what is significant to note is that under the Consent Terms (Exhibit-71), the respondent had also voluntarily waived her claim of maintenance and alimony and her streedhan. She also agreed to cooperate with the appellant to transfer the shares, properties – movable and immovable to the appellant. Further, she agreed to withdraw all the criminal and civil proceedings filed by her against the appellant. She acted upon the said terms as were agreed between the parties vide Consent Terms dated 6th October, 2008 at Exhibit 71, before the appellant filed the application Exhibit 80 on 16th February, 2009 to withdraw his consent. Somewhat similar situation was considered by the learned Single Judge of this Court in a recent decision in the case of Rajesh Pratap Sainani (supra). Even in that case, the petitioner before the High Court had challenged the order passed by the Family Court refusing to permit the petitioner to withdraw his consent and to dismiss the Petition under section 13B (2). In that case also, the original proceeding filed between the parties was one under Section 9 for decree of restitution of conjugal rights and not under Section 13B of the Act of 1955. When the said Petition was pending, criminal complaint was filed by the wife against the husband for offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. Thereafter, the parties realized that their marriage was irreconcilable and there was no possibility to save the same. Accordingly, they filed application under Section 13B of the Act for a decree of divorce by mutual consent, which was duly signed by both the parties. While the said application was pending, the husband moved the Family Court to permit him to withdraw his consent and to dismiss the Petition under Section 13B of the Act. The Court found that the wife had already acted upon the Consent Terms. In that, before the husband moved application for withdrawal of consent, she withdrew the criminal complaint filed against the husband as is the case on hand. She also returned the ornaments which were given to her in marriage by husband’s family. She waived her right to present and future maintenance including that of minor son. The wife was made to agree to a limited custody of minor son and access to the husband. The wife was also saddled with the liability of son’s future education and welfare. The Family Court, therefore, rejected the husband’s application for allowing him to withdraw the consent to decree of divorce by mutual consent, as the wife had already acted upon the terms of compromise to her prejudice, on the basis of the representation made by her husband. The Court invoked the principle of doctrine of Estoppel to uphold the order of the Family Court disallowing the prayer of the husband for withdrawing his consent. The Court observed that the husband cannot be permitted to take advantage of his own wrong. Further, the Family Court cannot be a helpless spectator inspite of the duplicity of the husband to induce the hapless wife to waive her maintenance claim and to withdraw the criminal complaints with the hope of starting her life afresh. The Court went on to observe that if the husband was allowed to withdraw his consent, it would be nothing short of husband resorting to fraud and misrepresentation, which cannot be permitted by the Courts of Law and Equity. The Court further observed that in such situations, no spouse can be allowed to withdraw consent unilaterally, unless he/she was able to substantiate a just cause to the satisfaction of the Court.

15. In another reported decision of this Court in the case of Sudhakar Joshi (supra), on which reliance is placed by the respondent, the husband had filed Petition for divorce on the ground of desertion, cruelty and adultery. During the pendency of the said Petition, parties filed Petition for divorce by consent. However, after filing of such Petition, one party continued to remain absent. The Trial Court opined that if one of the spouse remains absent, he had no jurisdiction to pass the decree for divorce in favour of the spouse who attends the Court. The learned Single Judge of this Court overturned the conclusion of the Trial Court by observing that a decree of divorce could be granted on the ground of desertion as Advocates for parties agreed to pass such a decree. The Court then referred to the provisions of Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It observed that before advent of Section 13B on the Statute Book, it was not possible for the Trial Court to resort to Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It went on to hold that with the legislative change, the Court can now decree even a Petition for divorce filed under Section 13 of the Act, by consent of the parties, if the Court were to be satisfied that such a decree was not collusive one. It further observed that the provisions of Section 13B and Section 23(1)(c) of the Act were mutually inconsistent. We do not agree with such a wide statement of law. For, the petition under section 13B stands on a completely different pedestal. The procedure to try the said petition is well defined in Section 13B read with Sections 23(1) (bb) and Section 23(1)(e) of the Act of 1955. These provisions are self contained Code. Whereas, while trying the petitions for divorce on grounds other than Section 13B, the mandate of the relevant provisions such as Section 13 read with Section 23 of the Act (except Section 23(1) (bb)) would apply. In the latter cases for a decree of divorce, the Court is obliged to record its satisfaction on the basis of evidence before it in respect of the ground alleged by the petitioner or respondent, as the case may be. The Apex Court in the case of Balwinder Kaur vs. Hardeep Singh (1997) 11 SCC 701 held that Section 23 of the Act of 1955 mandates the Court before granting decree for divorce, “whether defended or not”, to satisfy itself in respect of several factors mentioned in that Section and including duty in respect of conciliation efforts. Suffice it to hold that petitions on grounds other than petition for a decree of divorce by mutual consent under Section 13B of the Act, cannot be disposed of merely on the basis of compromise by invoking Order XXIII Rule 3 of the CPC. We are of the view that insertion of Section 13B and Section 23(1)(bb) by Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act 1976 (68 of 1976), which came into force with effect from 27th May, 1976, was not to dilute the mandate under other provisions casting duty on the Court to be satisfied about the existence of the stated ground as condition precedent, before passing a decree in terms of the reliefs claimed in the Petition. We would, however, agree with the exposition of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Apurba Ghosh (supra) that, decree of divorce in a Petition under Section 13 of the Act cannot be passed solely on the basis of compromise by resorting to provisions of Order XXIII Rule 3. Whereas, even the Court must be satisfied that a ground for divorce in the Statute can be traced from the record.

16. As aforesaid, if the Petition is filed “simplicitor under Section 13B of the Act” for divorce by mutual consent, the Court must satisfy itself that the consent given by the parties continues till the date of granting decree of divorce. Even if one party unilaterally withdraws his/her consent, the Court does not get jurisdiction to grant decree of divorce by mutual consent in view of the mandate of Section 13B of the Act. However, the situation would be different if the parties in the first instance resort to Petition for relief under Section 9 or 13 of the Act and during the pendency of such Petition, they decide to invite decree for divorce by mutual consent. On the basis of agreed arrangement, if the parties were to execute Consent Terms and then file a formal Petition/Application to convert the pending Petition to be treated as having been filed under Section 13B of the Act to grant decree of divorce by mutual consent, then, in the latter proceedings, before the decree is passed, one party cannot be allowed to unilaterally withdraw the consent if the other party has already acted upon the Consent Terms either wholly or in part to his/her detriment. In other words, the Court will have to be satisfied that: (i) there is sufficient, good and just cause for allowing the party to withdraw his consent, lest, it results in permitting the party to approbate and reprobate; (ii) that the other party would not suffer prejudice which is irreversible, due to withdrawal of the consent. If this twin requirement is not satisfied, the Court should be loath to entertain the prayer to allow the party to unilaterally withdraw his/her consent.

17. Reverting to the facts of the present case, we are in agreement with the finding recorded by the Trial Court that the sole reason or justification given by the appellant husband for withdrawing his consent already given (that he was denied access of the children), is not substantiated by him. Whereas, the material on record would indicate that the real reason was the inability of the appellant husband to meet the children as he was in jail in connection with criminal cases and also because the children were unwilling to meet the appellant. Thus, it was not a case of respondent coming in the way of providing access of the children to the appellant. In other words, there was no sufficient or just cause established by the appellant for permitting him to withdraw his consent. Further, it has come on record that the respondent acted upon the Consent Terms dated 6th October, 2008 and performed her obligations and committed herself to waive the claim of maintenance for herself and also streedhan including to withdraw civil and criminal actions initiated by her against the appellant. Even for this reason, the appellant cannot be permitted to withdraw his consent as it would result in bestowing premium on the appellant inspite of his unjust and inequitable request to allow him to of unilaterally withdraw the consent. We are in agreement with the said conclusion reached by the Family Court.

18. In this view of the matter, the rejection of the application preferred by the appellant for withdrawal of his consent was inevitable; and at the same time, the Court was duty bound to dissolve the marriage between the parties and pass a decree of divorce by mutual consent on the basis of the Consent Terms already filed on record accompanied by a formal application/Petition filed by the parties to grant such decree. The Family Court has also adverted to Rule 31 of the Family Courts (Maharashtra) Rules, 1987. The same reads thus:
“31. Settlement before Counsellor : – When the parties arrive at a settlement before the Counsellor relating to the dispute or any part thereof, such settlement shall be reduced to writing and shall be signed by the parties and countersigned by the Counsellor. The Court shall pronounce a decree or order in terms thereof unless the Court considers the terms of the settlement unconscionable or unlawful or contrary to public policy.” 

19. Notably, these Rules have been framed by the High Court in exercise of power bestowed in Section 21 of the Family Courts Act, 1984. In terms of Section 21(2)(c) of the Act, Rules can be framed to deal with the subject of efforts to be made by the Family Court and the procedure to be followed for assisting and persuading parties to arrive at a settlement. Rule 31, inter-alia, deals with that subject. In terms of this Rule, therefore, the Court may pronounce a decree on the basis of the consent terms reduced into writing and signed by the parties, unless it were to be of the opinion that the terms of the settlement arrived at between the parties are unconscionable or unlawful or contrary to the public policy. None of these issues have been raised by the appellant. We, however, make it clear that Rule 31 will be of no avail to pass a decree on the basis of petition such as for relief under Section 13 of the Act of 1955, as those petitions cannot be decreed merely because it is not defended or that parties have consented for passing decree on the ground pleaded therein. We have already alluded to this aspect hitherto.

20. For the view that we have taken, we find no infirmity in the order passed by the Family Court in rejecting the application (Exhibit 80) preferred by the appellant and instead, having decreed the Petition by dissolving the marriage solemnized between the appellant and the respondent and granting decree of divorce by mutual consent on the basis of the terms specified in Consent Terms (Exhibit 71).

21. We, reserve the remedy of the parties to resort to appropriate proceedings for effectuating the terms agreed upon including regarding access of children as provided in the Consent Terms (Exhibit 71), which proceedings will have to be decided on its own merits in accordance with law. All questions in that behalf are left open.

22. Hence, this Appeal ought to fail. The Appeal is, therefore, dismissed with costs quantified at Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) to be paid to the respondent within four weeks from today.

(MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)

 

Adv. Chandrasekhar (Advocate)     04 November 2013

As MCD has been time barred, now every advice becomes futile.  At the end, both of you will be losers, if it goes on continuing, as ultimately she fails to prove S.498-A and you will be acquitted and she will be loser and  there will be no divorce decree and in that respect you will be loser.  The only solution appears that in S. 498-A she will appear and seek time for her examination on the ground that a settlement is going to be reached and immediately move MCD afresh incorporating that you already paid 1.5 lakhs and the remaining amount be paid in the second motion and she will also withdraw S.498-A case.  See before second motion, she will not appear in S.498-A for giving her statement and go for second motion without insisting for withdrawal of S.498-A case.  Once second motion divorce decree is granted, she will lose interest in S.498-A case and  she does not appear to give her evidence.  If my presumption is wrong and if she will appear there, then also the statement she had given in MCD would be helpful to you for getting acquittal in S.498-A case.  This my advice can be put to test to salvage the situation.  But there are two difficulties in this advice at this late stage.  First, she may be apprehensive about your bonafide intentions of this new formula and the second is that she may raise her settlement amount and also may insist for payment of some amount in the first motion itself in the fresh MCD.  If that is so, then cancel the proposal and contest S.498-A case on merits.


Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register