An appeal against a consent decree under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is maintainable, and the court's involvement in decision making in the consent decree is crucial.

JUDGMENT :

RITU BAHRI, J.

1. The present appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 07.01.2020 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Sultanpur Lodhi (Exercising the powers conferred by the District & Sessions Judge, Kapurthala), whereby petition filed by the appellants under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of marriage by decree of divorce by mutual consent between the parties, has been allowed.

2. The appellants (Rajwinder Kaur and Palwinder Singh) solemnized marriage on 16.02.2015 as per Sikh rites at village Saroopwal, Tehsil Sultanpur Lodhi, District Kapurthala. Out of this wedlock, one child namely Gurkirat Singh was born on 30.12.2015. On account of temperamental differences, they started living separately since 11.11.2017. Ultimately, a petition under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for dissolution of marriage by way of mutual consent was filed before the court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sultanpur Lodhi on 29.05.2019 and the same was allowed vide judgment and decree dated 07.01.2020.

3. However, after getting decree of divorce with mutual consent under Section 13-B of the Act, the appellants have now reconciled their differences and started living together as husband and wife alongwith their minor child. The present appeal challenging the decree of divorce dated 07.01.2020 has been filed by appellant No. 1-Rajwinder Kaur and appellant No. 2-Palwinder Singh jointly, which is supported by their respective affidavits.

4. Today, Palwinder Singh-appellant No. 2 is present in the chamber of counsel for the appellants and appears virtually before this Court. He states that he and Rajwinder Kaur-appellant No. 1 are staying together happily, therefore, the decree of divorce dated 07.01.2020 granted under Section 13-B of the Act be set aside. Rajwinder Kaur-appellant No. 1 also appears before the Court virtually and states that after passing of the decree of divorce dated 07.01.2020, both of them are staying happily for the last two months i.e. since July, 2021. Photocopies of the Aadhaar cards of Rajwinder Kaur and Palwinder Singh (appellants) are taken on record as Annexure A-1 and A-2 respectively.

5. A Division Bench of this Court in Jyoti vs. Neeraj Kumar Saini, 2019 (1) RCR (Civil) 748 has observed as under:

“5. In this regard, learned counsel for the appellants has referred to a judgment of the division bench of this Court rendered in the case of Krishna Khetarpal, Headmistress, Government Girls High School, Bhuna, Tehsil Fatehabad, District Hisar vs. Satish Lal, 1986 (2) PLR 608 in which the same issue had arisen and it has been decided that the appeal against the consent decree passed under Section 13B is appealable under Section 28 of the Act and Sub Section 3 of Section 96 of the CPC has no bar. Since, this issue is no more res integra as already been decided by this Court, therefore, we have entertained the appeal.”

6. While referring to the judgment passed in Krishna Khetarpal's case (supra), the Division Bench had examined this issue in detail and held that under Section 28 of the Act, an appeal against the consent decree of divorce under Section 13-B of the Act by either party, was maintainable, as a matter of right. In Para 5 of the said judgment, the Division Bench has observed as under:

“An appeal against the decree of divorce by mutual consent distinctly is not merely on consent of the parties, for the matrimonial Court is involved in decision making so that it accords not only with provisions of Section 13-B of the Act but also Section 23 of the Act. In sub-section 13-B of the Act, a joint petition by the spouses can be presented to the District Court on the ground that they have been living separately for a period of one year or more before the presentation of the petition and that they have not been able to live together and further that they have mutually agreed that the marriage should be di