Court’s Decision
The Delhi High Court dismissed a matrimonial appeal filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, challenging a divorce decree granted by mutual consent under Section 13B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The Court held that:
“The appellant, having availed of and exhausted the remedy of review, cannot now circumvent the statutory bar under Section 19(2) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, by filing the present appeal.”
It affirmed that no appeal lies from a consent decree passed by the Family Court and that the proper recourse lies in review before the same court that passed the decree. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.
Facts
- The marriage between the appellant and the respondent was solemnized on 17.06.2009. They had two daughters from the marriage.
- The appellant alleged physical and mental cruelty, coercion, and threats from the respondent, including being forced at knifepoint to sign a divorce petition.
- The appellant participated in proceedings for a mutual consent divorce and signed the first and second motion petitions on 08.09.2021 and 16.12.2021, respectively.
- A decree of divorce by mutual consent was granted on 16.12.2021.
- The appellant subsequently filed a review petition under Section 114 read with Order XLVII CPC, which was dismissed on 27.02.2024.
- The present appeal was filed alleging that the decree had been obtained through fraud, coercion, and threats.
Issues
- Whether an appeal lies under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 against a consent decree of divorce granted under Section 13B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act?
- Whether allegations of fraud, coercion, and subsequent criminal conduct can be grounds for setting aside a mutual consent divorce decree in appeal?
- Whether the change in custody arrangements or breach of alleged oral settlement terms can invalidate the decree?
Petitioner’s Arguments
- The decree of divorce was obtained through coercion, threats, and fraud, including threats to the life of the appellant and her children.
- She was forced to sign the divorce petition and was promised settlement for her children, which was never honored.
- FIR No. 179/2022 was filed alleging physical and sexual violence post-decree.
- The welfare and education of the children were severely compromised due to the fraudulent decree.
- Despite being granted custody, the respondent abandoned the children with the appellant without financial support.
Respondent’s Arguments
- Not separately recorded in the judgment; however, the respondent had secured the mutual consent decree after both parties gave statements before the Family Court, affirming the voluntariness of their decision and settlement of all disputes.
Analysis of the Law
- Section 19(2) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 bars an appeal from a consent decree.
- Relief from a consent decree can be sought only through a review before the same court that passed the decree.
- This interpretation is supported by the Delhi High Court ruling in Anshu Malhotra v. Mukesh Malhotra, 2020 SCC OnLine Del 3255, which held: “It is only the court which passed the consent decree which is capable of going into the said facts… if the same is done [by the appellate court], it would also deprive the parties of an important right of appeal.”
- The Supreme Court in Manisha Anand v. Nilesh Anand, SLP (C) No. 4530/2025, similarly held that the proper remedy for a fraudulently obtained consent decree is a review before the Family Court.
Precedent Analysis
- Anshu Malhotra v. Mukesh Malhotra, 2020 SCC OnLine Del 3255
The Delhi High Court emphasized that challenges to consent decrees must be raised before the court that passed them and not through an appellate process. - Manisha Anand v. Nilesh Anand, SLP (C) No. 4530/2025
The Supreme Court reiterated that an appeal is not the proper remedy for challenging a consent decree and that the appropriate course is a recall/review application.
Court’s Reasoning
- The Family Court, while granting the divorce, had recorded the voluntary and unequivocal joint statement of both parties after verifying their identity.
- The parties had clearly declared that there was no coercion, pending dispute, or unresolved issue.
- The statutory requirements under Section 13B(2) HMA were fully complied with.
- The appellant, a well-educated woman and mother of two, attended all hearings and made no complaint at that stage.
- The High Court held that post-decree allegations, such as change in custody or criminal conduct, do not constitute grounds to appeal a mutual consent decree.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court held that:
“The present appeal is not maintainable and even otherwise, there is no error or infirmity in the Impugned Judgment and Decree dated 16.12.2021 passed by the learned Family Court.”
Accordingly, the appeal and all pending applications were dismissed.
Implications
- This judgment reaffirms the legal position that consent decrees under Section 13B HMA are final and non-appealable under Section 19(2) of the Family Courts Act.
- Allegations of fraud, coercion, or misrepresentation must be raised through a review petition before the Family Court that passed the decree.
- The ruling preserves judicial efficiency by preventing appellate forums from re-evaluating matters settled through mutual agreement and recorded consent.
- Parties must exercise caution and ensure clarity at the time of recording statements for mutual consent decrees, as later challenges will face high legal thresholds.