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.