This revision has been directed by the first petitioner in H.M.O.P.No.260 of 2012, on the file of learned Principal Sub- Judge, Thanjavur, to scrap C.M.A.No.21 of 2013, pending on the file of learned Principal District Judge, Thanjavur.

2. On 01.09.2011, revision petitioner and respondent have joined in wedlock at Punnainallur Mariamman Temple, according to Hindu rites and customs. They have no issues, but have issues. They jointly filed H.M.O.P.No.260 of 2012, under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (shortly, hereinafter ' H.M.Act— ) in the Court of Principal Subordinate Judge, Thanjavur, seeking divorce on their own volition, since their marital bondage has been irretrievably broken down.

3. Both were represented by very same Advocate. On the date of presentation of the said original petition, in order to elicit their willingness, the learned Judge recorded their statement and they have affixed their signature. The H.M.O.P. was adjourned. As the revision petitioner / husband is very much interested in getting divorce, he regularly, appeared before the Court. But, the respondent / wife did not. The H.M.O.P. came to be adjourned from time to time. Subsequently, notices were also issued to her for her appearance, but they were in vain.

4. On 12.09.2013, revision petitioner alone was present. She was not present. There was no representation on her behalf also. In the circumstances, the Trial Court concluded the proceedings and dissolved their marriage under Section 13-B of H.M.Act.

5. In the circumstances, the respondent preferred C.M.A.No.21 of 2013, under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, to the Court of Principal District Judge, Thanjavur, challenging the said divorce decree granted by the learned Principal Sub-Judge, Kumbakonam, raising several grounds.

6. At this juncture, the revision petitioner directed this revision alleging that filing of the said appeal as against the divorce decree granted on their mutual consent, is an abuse of process of the Court and thus the said C.M.A.No.21 of 2013, pending on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Thanjavur, is to be struck off.

7. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that on the date when the H.M.O.P. was presented before the Sub- Judge, Kumbakonam, the statement of both the spouses were recorded by the learned Judge and it was signed by both, it is enough to grant the decree of divorce. In this connection, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner cited Leela Mahadeo Joshi v. Mahadeo Sitaram Joshi [AIR 1991 Bombay 105].

8. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would further submit that the decree passed by the Trial Court is a consent decree. As against a consent decree, no appeal will lie. In this connection, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner would quote Section 96(3) C.P.C, and cite K.C.Dora v. G.Annamanaidu [AIR 1974 SC 1069] and Pushpa Devi Bhagat v. Rajinder Singh [AIR 2006 SC 2628].

9. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would further submit that if the respondent is of the view that the consent decree was obtained dishonestly or on coercion, the proper remedy is only to file a separate suit to set it aside and not by way of an appeal. In this connection, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner would cite Kewal Krishnan v. Shiv Kumar [AIR 1970 Punjab & Haryana 176], and Bhagwati Prasad v. Delhi State Mineral Development Corpn. [AIR 1990 SC 371].

10. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would also submit that actually the respondent lured and trapped the petitioner. Unknowingly, he had fallen a prey. She received all her Sreedhana articles and also Rs.2 lakhs as lump sum amount assuring that she is willing to terminate their marital bondage. However, after the consent decree was passed, she challenged the same by filing the appeal in C.M.A.No.21 of 2013. It is totally an abuse of process of the Court.

11. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent would