Ravindra V. Ghuge, J.

Heard learned Advocates for the respective parties.

2. Rule.

3. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith and the petition is taken up for final disposal.

4. After hearing this matter and before commencing the dictation of this judgment in open Court, I informed the litigating sides about the view formed by me. I informed the learned Advocate for the petitioner that I would be considering the conduct of the petitioner as well as the conduct of the learned Advocate in these proceedings and there would be observations about the conduct of both of them. I, therefore, gave an opportunity to the learned Advocate Shri Surve to withdraw this petition. It is submitted that the petitioner as well as the learned Advocate would prefer to invite an order from this Court and do not desire to withdraw this petition.

5. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 30.11.2015, by which, application Exhibit 72 filed by the petitioner/wife/original respondent in Petition No. A-323 of 2014 and in Petition No. C-18 of 2013 seeking liberty to withdraw the consent terms, has been rejected.

6. For the sake of brevity, the petitioner is referred to as the "Wife" and the respondent as the "Husband".

7. The submissions of the petitioner can be summarized as under :-

(a) Petition No. A-323 of 2014 is filed by the respondent/husband.

(b) Petition C-18 of 2013 has been filed by the petitioner/wife herein.

(c) The marriage in between the husband and the wife was performed on 25.4.2013.

(d) Within 13 days from the marriage, both separated and started living apart from 8.5.2013.

(e) The petitioner/wife as well as the respondent/husband are qualified and hold the degrees of Bachelor of Engineering.

(f) Petition A-323 of 2014 has been filed by the husband seeking a divorce from the wife.

(g) Petition C-18 of 2013 has been filed by the wife claiming maintenance from the husband.

(h) Both the parties are represented by their Advocates before all Courts.

(i) On 8.6.2015, when the husband and wife were before the Counsellor, they decided to settle their dispute by submitting the consent terms in Marathi duly signed by both the sides and identified by the Counsellor.

(j) The petitioner/wife was fraudulently made to accept the compromise terms and was induced into signing the consent terms.

(k) The conversion of petition A-323 of 2014 on 8.6.2015 was also fraudulently carried out so as to project a picture that the said petition was converted into a Deed of Divorce by Mutual Consent under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

(l) Being aggrieved, the wife moved an application Exhibit 72 in both the matters and indicated the fraud played upon her in inducing her to sign the consent terms.

(m) Since allegations were made against the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Aurangabad, she developed prejudice against the petitioner/wife and rejected the application by the impugned order dated 30.11.2015.

(n) The learned Principal Judge used to threaten the petitioner/wife.

(o) The learned Principal Judge used to frown upon the Advocate of the petitioner Shri Surve.

(p) The learned Principal Judge was siding with the respondent/husband.

(q) The learned Principal Judge has played a fraud on the petitioner/wife.

(r) No affidavit is filed in support of the application Exhibit 72 by the wife.

(s) Shri Surve, Advocate was not allowed to sit along with the petitioner/wife before the Counsellor and in the absence of his assistance, the compromise terms were written down.

(t) The application for conversion dated 8.6.2015 was signed by the litigating sides and Shri Surve was not allowed to assist the wife.

8. During the course of the submissions before this Court, learned Advocate Shri Surve started making verbal allegations against the learned Principal Judge, Family Court. I restrained him from making such allegations and directed him to restrict himself only to the contents of application Exhibit 72, which the petitioner/wife had preferred before the learned P