Appeal in Divorce Decree by Consent is also maintainable if signature obtained under coercion or undue influence: Allahabad HC (Read Judgment)

Allahabad HC experienced held that the charm even against a consent decree below this sort of information and situation of the scenario, where the consent by itself is disputed and no inquiry has been done by the court below is maintainable, subject matter to objection on visual appeal by the other aspect.

The court was hearing a matter where it was alleged by appellant-wife that her signature on divorce petition was obtained by coercion. The wife was confined in the household of the husband and hence using undue advantage of this sort of confinement her signatures had been obtained to get the divorce.

As the law was effectively settled that a decree handed by consent cannot be challenged by way of charm. The Family members Courtroom could not have handed the decree of divorce below Part 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 with no the next motion and that as well just before expiry of 6 months from the 1st motion.

The petition submitted below Part 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 arrived up for thing to consider as mounted by the Courtroom, after 6 months i.e. on 11.1.2018. On the reported date, both equally the husband and the wife appeared just before the Courtroom. None of the events in the meantime both withdrew the petition nor the consent for divorce both orally or by moving any software. They submitted a different joint affidavit may well be for initiating the next motion on 11.1.2018 acknowledging the earlier information and that the mediation involving them has unsuccessful. The Courtroom in watch of the actuality that the marriage involving the events was solemnised on 30.5.2015 and they had been residing individually given that 15.3.2016 with no situation of the wedlock, after recording its satisfaction that the petition is bonafide, handed the decree of dissolution of marriage by mutual consent.

A decree of divorce by mutual consent can only be handed if all vital ingredients contained in Part 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 are pleased to the satisfaction of the Courtroom.

In the scenario of Smt. Sureshta Devi Vs. Om Prakash (1991) 2 SCC 25 it has been laid down that on the joint motion of the events to grant divorce by mutual consent the court is supposed to make an inquiry, hear and examine both equally the events to determine that the averments designed in the divorce petition are accurate and that the consent of the events has not been obtained by force, fraud or undue impact.

Part 23(1)(bb) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 also casts an obligation upon the courts in the matter of divorce by mutual consent to fulfill by itself that the consent has not been obtained by force, fraud or undue impact. Consequently, the Courtroom is obliged to make requisite inquiry in the matter just before proceeding to pass a decree of divorce by mutual consent.
It indicates that for a decree of divorce by mutual consent joint petition is obligatory and that the next motion has to be designed by the events after 6 months but just before expiry of eighteen months of the 1st motion petition and that the events are totally free to withdraw the petition whenever just before the passing of the decree. The decree has to be handed after creating because of inquiry as to the genuineness and bonafide of the events to the petition.
Part 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 which permitted filing of charm against the decrees and orders handed below the Act put no rider on filing charm even against a consent decree. It permitted charm against all decrees designed by the Courtroom in any proceedings below the Act, except those relating to award of charges. Consequently, by essential implication, even consent or compromise decree, if handed below the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 had been open up to charm.
This is also the watch taken by the Punjab Superior Courtroom in the scenario of Smt. Krishna Khetarpal Vs. Satish Lal AIR 1987 Punjab & Haryana 191 and Charanjit Singh Mann Vs. Neelam Maan AIR 2006 Punjab and Haryana 201 and it has been held that against the decree of divorce by mutual consent charm is maintainable below Part 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

In watch of the earlier mentioned, commonly a consent decree or purchase cannot be assailed by way of charm but where the consent by itself is disputed and is not reported to be genuine, bonafide or totally free the matters would be fairly distinct as has been pointed out in the selection of Sushama by the Bombay Superior Courtroom and it turns into the solemn duty of the Courtroom to hold an inquiry in this regard just before proceeding to pass a decree of divorce. This has not been finished by the court below in the current scenario and it has recorded its satisfaction with no conducting any this sort of inquiry.

The bench in this scenario of the view that the charm even against a consent decree below this sort of information and situation of the scenario, where the consent by itself is disputed and no inquiry has been done by the court below is maintainable, subject matter to objection on visual appeal by the other aspect.

Quotation:

Superior Courtroom OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD 
Purchase reserved on 04.04.2018
Purchase sent on 06.04.2018

Situation :- To start with Attractiveness No. – 227 of 2018
Appellant :- Smt. Pooja
Respondent :- Vijay Chaitanya
Counsel for Appellant :- Shiv Bahadur Singh, Anjani Kumar Dubey

Bench:
Hon’ble Pankaj Mithal,J.
Hon’ble Rajiv Joshi,J.

Comprehensive Judgment in this article:

Shares 0

Post Author: gupta

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *