Delhi HC: Appeal Against Consent Decree for Dissolution of Marriage Not Maintainable In Present Case

Must Read

Bombay High Court Passes Order To Clarify and Modify Previous Order When State of Maharashtra Moved Praecipe

Division Bench of Bombay High Court consisting of Justice S. V. Gangapurwala and Justice Shrikant D. Kulkarni had passed...

The European Court of Human Rights Orders Germany To Pay Non-Pecuniary Damages for Prison Strip-Searches 

A serving German prisoner was repeatedly stripped searched for non-legitimate purposes. The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) found...

Lack of Independent Witness Doesn’t Vitiate Conviction: Supreme Court

A three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Rajesh Dhiman v State of Himachal Pradesh clarified the law in...

Madras High Court Observes Unexplained Delay in Procedural Safeguards, Quashes Detention Through Writ Petition

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus. The petitioner P. Lakshmi,...

UK Court of Appeal Rules Home Department’s Deportation Policy of Immigrants Unlawful

Britain’s Court of Appeal quashed the Home Department’s deportation policy, declaring it unlawful; criticizing it for being too stringent...

Supreme Court Stays Order Restraining Physical Campaigns in the Madhya Pradesh Bye-Elections

On the 26th of October, a Bench was set up which comprised Justice AM Khanwilkar, Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, and...

Follow us

Delhi High Court holds that an appeal against the consent of the dissolution of marriage is not maintainable.

Facts of the Case

The Appellant has filed the appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA). It is against the order of the Family Court. Also, stating that there was no mutual consent to dissolve her marriage.

The Appellant argued that she was sick when she gave consent; thus, it was not her wish. The Court referred to Section 19(2) of the Family Courts Act. It stated that any appeal against an order passed by Family Court with the consent of the parties is barred.

The Court questioned the maintainability of the appeal given in Section 96(3) of the CPC, 1908. This section barred appeals from a decree passed by the Court with the consent of the parties. The Punjab and Haryana High Court highlighted Section 96 of the Civil Procedure, 1908. In addition to that, it pointed out that appeals under this section stood on a different footing. Therefore, that is from an appeal against a decree of divorce by mutual consent.

Appellant’s Arguments

The Appellant contended that the order of the dissolution of her marriage was obtained during her illness. Thus, it is not of her own volition. And there was no consent for the dissolution of marriage with the respondent. Further, the contention raised was that the parties did not live for the mandatory period of one year. This happened before a petition under Section 13B (1) of the Hindu Marriage Act. In various cases, an appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act is maintainable. That is against a decree of dissolution of marriage by mutual consent.

Court’s Decision

The Delhi HC said that the distinction as put by the Punjab and Haryana HC does not exist. That is between a decree of dissolution of marriage by mutual consent and a suit before the Civil Court. The Gujarat, Bombay, Allahabad, Kerala, and Madras HC had taken the same view as that of Punjab and Haryana HC.

The Court thus held that appeal against a consent decree for dissolution of marriage was not maintainable. The remedy for fraud and misrepresentation was by applying to the same Court.

The Court’s Remarks

“We do not find any reason why the said principle of the law of general application should not follow qua decree of divorce by mutual consent. When the grounds of appeal are based on facts, which were not before the Court, which passed the consent decree, it is only the Court that passed the consent decree which is capable of going into the said facts. If any prima facie merit is revealed therein, inquire by recording evidence concerning that and to take the final decision after that. Against such an order, an appeal may lie. We, however, do not deem it necessary to give a final opinion in this regard.”


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgements from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe for our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

 

Latest News

Bombay High Court Passes Order To Clarify and Modify Previous Order When State of Maharashtra Moved Praecipe

Division Bench of Bombay High Court consisting of Justice S. V. Gangapurwala and Justice Shrikant D. Kulkarni had passed an Order on 25th October...

The European Court of Human Rights Orders Germany To Pay Non-Pecuniary Damages for Prison Strip-Searches 

A serving German prisoner was repeatedly stripped searched for non-legitimate purposes. The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) found that Germany had violated the...

Lack of Independent Witness Doesn’t Vitiate Conviction: Supreme Court

A three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Rajesh Dhiman v State of Himachal Pradesh clarified the law in case of lack of independent...

Madras High Court Observes Unexplained Delay in Procedural Safeguards, Quashes Detention Through Writ Petition

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus. The petitioner P. Lakshmi, called for records of the...

UK Court of Appeal Rules Home Department’s Deportation Policy of Immigrants Unlawful

Britain’s Court of Appeal quashed the Home Department’s deportation policy, declaring it unlawful; criticizing it for being too stringent on immigrants to comply with. Background The...

Supreme Court Stays Order Restraining Physical Campaigns in the Madhya Pradesh Bye-Elections

On the 26th of October, a Bench was set up which comprised Justice AM Khanwilkar, Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, and Justice Sanjiv Khanna. They heard...

Inordinate and Unexplained Delay in Considering Representation by Government Renders Detention Order Illegal: Madras High Court

A Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was filed in the Madras High Court to declare the detention order of the husband of...

Supreme Court Asks Petitioner to Approach Bombay High Court in PIL for CBI Probe in Disha Salian Case

On the 26th of October 2020, the Apex Court heard the PIL praying for a CBI probe into the death of Disha Salian. The...

Privy Council Clarifies Approach To Winding up in “Deadlock” Cases in the Case of Chu v. Lau

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council clarified several aspects of the law concerning just and equitable winding-up petitions, as well as shareholder disputes...

Madras High Court Directs Hospital To Submit Necessary Medical Reports to Authorization Committee for Approval of Kidney Transplant

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a Writ of Mandamus to K.G. Hospital, Coimbatore by P. Sankar & V. Sobana....

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -