Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
U.Durga Prasad Rao, Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa, JJ.
Vuyyuru Anusha Rao - Appellant
Versus
Vuyyuru Ravi Teja - Respondent
F.C.A. No. 70 of 2023
Decided On : 14-12-2023
The parties filed a petition for divorce by mutual consent under Sec. 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act. The husband later sought to withdraw his consent, alleging it was obtained under threat, coercion, and influence. The Family Court dismissed the petition, but the wife appealed, arguing that the court misinterpreted Sec. 13 (B) of the H.M.A. and failed to consider the objections raised by the husband. The High Court remanded the matter back to the Family Court for further inquiry into the husband's objections and to pass a reasoned order on merits. The Family Court's dismissal of the divorce petition was found unsustainable under law and was set aside. The matter was remanded back to the Family Court for an inquiry into the husband's objections and to pass an appropriate order expeditiously.
This legal document pertains to a family law case involving a petition for divorce by mutual consent under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act. The core issue is whether the court can permit withdrawal of consent at any stage prior to passing the final decree of divorce. The court emphasizes that mutual consent must persist until the decree is granted, and that the court must be satisfied about the genuine and continued consent of both parties at the time of passing the decree (!) (!) .
The case highlights that a party has the legal right to withdraw consent before the decree is issued, and such withdrawal, if unaccompanied by coercion, fraud, or undue influence, is valid under law (!) (!) . The court underscores the importance of a proper inquiry into the validity of consent, especially if allegations of coercion or undue influence are raised (!) (!) .
The proceedings reveal that the initial petition was filed with mutual consent, but subsequent objections were raised by the husband alleging that consent was obtained through threats and coercion. The Family Court initially dismissed the petition, but on appeal, the High Court remanded the matter for a detailed inquiry into whether the husband's consent was vitiated by force or undue influence (!) (!) .
Furthermore, the court considers the significance of family agreements and prior settlement arrangements, noting that once parties agree and act upon such agreements, unilateral withdrawal of consent can be deemed unjustified if it causes prejudice or is based on extraneous considerations (!) (!) .
The final decision remands the case back to the Family Court for a thorough investigation into whether the initial consent was obtained improperly. The court directs that, based on this inquiry, an appropriate order should be passed within a specified timeframe, ensuring that the principles of fairness and justice are upheld (!) .
Overall, the judgment underscores that mutual consent is a fundamental and jurisdictional requirement for granting divorce by mutual consent, and that such consent must be maintained till the decree is passed, with the court having the authority and obligation to scrutinize the validity of consent if doubts arise.
JUDGMENT
VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA, J. - The Present Family Court Appeal is filed under Sec. 19 (1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 impugning the order dtd. 17/5/2023 in F.C.O.P. No.420 of 2022 on the file of the IV Additional District Judge-cum-Judge, Principal Family Court, Vijayawada, wherein a petition filed under Sec. 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act was dismissed since the Petitioner No.1 had taken a plea that his consent was obtained by force under threat, coercion, and influence.
2. Appellant herein was the Petitioner No.2/Wife and the Respondent herein was the Petitioner No.1/Husband before the trial Court. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred to as they are arrayed before the trial Court.
Factual Background:
3. The Petitioners, being Husband and wife filed F.C.O.P.No.420 of 2022 under Sec. 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, seeking divorce by mutual consent. They have filed the said petition on 10/3/2022 stating that their marriage solemnized on 14/2/2021, disputes arose between them within 15 days of the marriage and as efforts for reconciliation failed, they have been living separately from 2/3/2021 and accordingly, they have mutually agreed to take divorce by mutual consent.
4. On 10/10/2022, the Court recorded the evidence of both parties. The Petitioners deposed before the Court as P.Ws. 1 and 2 respectively and Exs. P.1 to P.3 were the documents marked and the matter was posted for Orders on 20/10/2022.
5. Meanwhile, the Petitioner No.1/husband filed I.A.No.739 of 2022 seeking to reopen the petition, stating that his consent was obtained by force, fraud, and undue influence. The Court allowed the petition and reopened the matter for further hearing to 20/10/2022. On 20/10/2022, none represented the matter. Considering objection raised by the Petitioner No.1 for withdrawing his consent, the Family Court dismissed the petition.
6. Being aggrieved by the said Order dtd. 20/10/2022, the wife filed F.C.A.No.95 of 2022. This Court, vide order dtd. 3/2/2023 remanded the matter to the Family Court with a direction to enquire into the objections raised by the Petitioner No.1/husband for withdrawing his consent and directed to pass reasoned order on merits.
7. After remanding the matter, the Petitioner No.1/husband filed his fresh affidavit reiterating that his consent was obtained under threat, fraud, and undue influence and that he is always willing to live with his wife happily. He stated in the Affidavit that his wife and her family members are threatening to implicate him and his family members in criminal cases. He also stated that the consent for filing the mutual divorce petition is by force and is not free consent. Thereafter, the learned trial Judge dismissed the divorce petition, vide order dtd. 17/5/2023.
8. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dtd. 17/5/2023, Petitioner No.2/wife, carried the matter in Appeal before this Court, on the following grounds:
a) Learned Family Court Judge misinterpreted Sec. 13 (B) of the H.M.A. and dismissed the mutual consent divorce petition holding that the party can withdraw the consent, ignoring the stage i.e., for pronouncement of Orders. On 23/9/2022, 26/9/2022, and also on 10/10/2022, both the parties appeared before the Court and on none of these occasions, such an application for withdrawal of consent was moved by the respondent herein.
b) The mutual consent petition was filed on 10/3/2022. Till filing of I.A.No.739 of 2022 on 13/10/2022 and the matter is posted for hearing, the respondent never chose to raise any objection for granting divorce. Admittedly, the Petitioner No.1/husband is a highly educated man, who in fact appeared for Public Service Examination, cannot expect that he will not react and will keep quiet. His silence would show that there is no truth in the allegation and it is only for extraneous consideration.
c) The impugned order is contrary to the directions of this Court in F.C.A.No.95 of 2022 as no findings were g
The main legal point established in the judgment is that mutual consent for divorce must continue until the decree is passed, and the court must be satisfied about the existence of mutual consent bet....
Point of law: Requirement under Section 13B(2) of Hindu Marriage Act is the “motion of both parties”.
A party may withdraw consent for mutual divorce at any time before the decree, affecting maintenance claims.
The judgment emphasizes the importance of mutual consent for divorce under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and the significance of Rule 31 of the Family Courts (Maharashtra) Rules, 1987....
Withdrawing consent to a mutual divorce under Section 13B(2) of the HMA does not constitute an abuse of process of law, allowing criminal proceedings to continue.
An appeal against a decree of divorce by mutual consent is not maintainable if the consent is claimed to be obtained through fraud or misrepresentation.
Withdrawal of consent to mutual divorce under Section 13B(2) of the HMA does not constitute abuse of process, as mutual consent must exist at both stages of divorce proceedings.
The necessity of mutual consent for divorce under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act is emphasized, invalidating decrees made post-withdrawal of consent.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
