JUDGMENT :

Arun Monga, J.

1. Appeal herein is directed against a judgment dated 03.04.2025 (Annexure-3) rendered by learned Family Court, Merta. Vide impugned judgment the learned Family Judge in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, dismissed the Civil Suit filed by appellant wife seeking declaration that her marriage stands dissolved under Section 2 of Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939.

2. At the outset, to invoke the old adage in converse, instant case is one where “miya biwi raazi, nahi maan rahaa qazi”. It transpires that both parties were/are unequivocally agreeable to dissolution of marriage and had consciously tendered their consent before the learned Trial Judge. Yet, the marriage was not dissolved. The learned Family Court evidently was persuaded with the principle that considerations of public interest must prevail over private consent. What appears to have also weighed with the learned Judge is that consent of parties, by itself, cannot sanctify an illegality.

3. No doubt, the legal position admits of no ambiguity i.e. even where parties are ad idem, the Court is duty-bound to subject the arrangement to the touchstone of legality. Mere consensus between litigating parties cannot clothe an otherwise impermissible act with legitimacy, nor can it denude the Court of its statutory jurisdiction to examine the matter independently. More of it later.

4. Brief facts of the case first. Parties to the marriage are Muslims by religion. Their marriage was solemnized in accordance with Muslim Sharia and customs on 27.02.2022 at Merta City. No child is born out of the wedlock.

4.1. After the marriage, serious disputes arose between the parties due to persistent differences in temperament and ideology, resulting in strained relations. According to the plaintiff-wife / appellant, the conduct of the defendant-husband / respondent caused such mental distress that it became impossible for the parties to continue living together as husband and wife.

4.2 During the subsistence of the marriage, the defendant pronounced talaq upon the plaintiff in accordance with Muslim law —first on 08.06.2024, second on 08.07.2024, and finally on 08.08.2024, each pronouncement being made during separate Tuhar periods (distinct menstrual cycles). The plaintiff accepted the said pronouncements. Consequently, the marital relationship between the parties stood dissolved with effect from 08.08.2024, in accordance with Muslim Shariat and customs.

4.3 Subsequently, both the parties admit that they also executed a written divorce agreement by mutual consent on 20.08.2024, duly stamped on non-judicial stamp paper of Rs. 500/-, affirming the dissolution of marriage. As per the said settlement, the plaintiff received a lump-sum amount towards her lifelong maintenance from the defendant. Both parties acknowledged that there remains no possibility of reconciliation or resumption of marital life in the future.

4.4 On these grounds, the plaintiff/wife sought a decree of divorce under Section 2(viii)(a) of the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939. She also filed an affidavit in support of her claim.

4.5 The defendant-husband filed a written statement admitting the factum of marriage, the dates of the talaq pronounced during three separate Tuhar periods, and also the execution of the mutual divorce agreement. While denying the allegations of cruelty and harassment, the defendant stated that due to irreconcilable differences and misunderstandings, the parties are not residing together as husband and wife. The defendant also further expressed his no objection to the grant of a decree of divorce dissolving the marriage in question.

5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the Trial Court on 12.02.2025:

“1. Did the defendant, being the husband of the plaintiff, treat her with cruelty and torture?

2. Has the defendant duly divorced the plaintiff?

3. Relief?”

6. Evidence was adduced and after hearin