Parties to a mutual consent divorce cannot withdraw their consent after receiving benefits from an agreement; obligations under the agreement must be fulfilled.

JUDGMENT :

Devan Ramachandran, J.

This is a case where the appellant attempts to resile from a petition seeking divorce on mutual consent, that she filed jointly with the respondent, under Section 10A of the Divorce Act , 1869 (‘Act’, for short).

2. The essential facts, shorn of unnecessary details, are that the parties had matrimonial disputes between them, arising in 2011, leading to three cases being filed by the appellant against the respondent: namely OP No.181/2013 before the learned Family Court, Irinjalakuda, seeking return of her gold and patrimony; MC No.56/2014 before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Irinjalakuda, seeking maintenance; and CC No.3330/2014 also before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Irinjalakuda, under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

3. It is uncontested and unequivocally admitted that the parties went into compromise and subscribed to certain terms, to be presented as a Settlement Memorandum before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Irinjalakuda; which was approved by it, thus ordering MC No.56/2014 in terms of the same.

4. The afore gave rise to a cascading series of events, namely, that the two Appeals that were filed by the parties before this Court against the judgment in OP No.181/2013 aforementioned - which had been decreed against the respondent asking him to return a certain weight of gold to the appellant - namely Mat.Appeal No.1227/2016 and 908/2016, were disposed of, also in terms of the above said settlement, expressly recording it and thus making it a part of the judgment of this Court.

5. At this stage or thereabout, it is alleged that the appellant did not comply with the further terms of the Agreement and hence the respondent and his parents approached this Court, through Crl.MC No.6043/2017, seeking that CC No.3330/2014 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Irinjalakuda, be quashed. Admittedly this case was allowed through the judgment dated 15.12.2017, recording therein that, though the appellant had tried to resile from the aforementioned Agreement, the same cannot be allowed, since it had been performed in part by the respondent; thus quashing the Criminal Case.

6. Since the appellant refused to evict herself from her matrimonial home, but which is admittedly owned by her father-in-law - though such was also a condition agreed to by her in the Agreement - the latter filed OS No.2199/2014 before the competent Civil Court, seeking her eviction from it.

7. While so, it transpires that the respondent – husband, on its own, filed an application under Section 10A of the ‘Act’, relying upon the aforementioned Agreement, before the learned Family Court, in which a notice was issued to the appellant. However, nothing appears to have progressed on that application – which in any case was not maintainable – and the parties, thereupon, filed the present case, presenting it after being signed by both of them and their counsel, specifically agreeing to certain terms as are available in paragraphs 8, 9 and 10 of the petition.

8. Going by the terms of the joint application filed, the respondent - husband conceded to pay the sums agreed by him under the settlement earlier mentioned and also additionally to release a deposit in the joint names of the parties to the appellant; with her agreeing that she will vacate the house, so that OS No.2199/2014 filed by her father-in-law can be withdrawn.

9. Interestingly, even though the respondent - husband deposited the amount agreed in the application - which was concededly withdrawn by the appellant; and also allowed her to withdraw the Fixed Deposit, she refused to give consent for the divorce, saying that she was made to sign the application without being aware of its contents and by employing deception on her.

10. The learned Family Court considered the matter and delivered the impugned judgment, holding that the case of the appellant cannot be believed because, she had voluntarily accepted all