No appeal lies from a decree or order passed by a Family Court with the consent of the parties under Section 19(2) of the Family Courts Act, 1984.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal by the plaintiff appellant husband against the judgment and order dated 16-11-1990 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court arising out of an application for dissolution of marriage filed by the plaintiff appellant against the wife, the defendant respondent under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 (for short the Act ).

( 2 ) THE factual matrix of the case is that the appellant has filed an application for divorce under Section 13 of the Act. The respondent filed a written statement. Ultimately a compromise signed by the parties was arrived at on 15-11-1990 (Annexure 6 ). That compromise was filed before the Family Court, which was to the effect that an amicable settlement has been arrived at and the parties are withdrawing the allegations made against either side. The respondent wife agreed that all the applications made against her husband by her would be withdrawn or got dismissed. This was very specifically agreed upon that any specific amount payable as compensation to her would be acceptable. This condition was very material keeping in view the provisions of Section 25 (Twenty Five) of the Act. Another application was also filed on the same date by the wife which is a part of Annexure 6, which was to the effect that the respondent would get the criminal case under Section 406/498, I. P. C. withdrawn. Taking into account the compromise application the impugned judgment has been passed, awarding a sum of Rs. 60,000 / - to the wife as permanent alimony. This has also been stated in the judgment that the parties belong to a well-to-do family. The aforesaid compromise dated 15-11-1990 was recorded on the dictation of Principal Judge, Family Court. Consequently it is not possible for either of the parties to resile from that statement contained in that application. It is also to be noticed that the compromise has been signed by the wife as well as by the husband. Under these circumstances, the judgment has been passed making the compromise as its part. That compromise also contains averments on oath by both the parties. Taking into account the averments made in the compromise application the impugned judgment has been passed decreeing the suit for divorce, but at the same time awarded a sum of Rs. 60,000. 00- to the respondent as permanent alimony provided under Section 25 of the Act. The present appeal has been filed against that judgment and order passed by the Family Court with the consent of parties.

( 3 ) SRI P. N. Saxena, learned counsel for the appellant strenuously urged that the appeal would lie under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 even if there is provision under Section 19 (2) of the Act to the effect that no appeal shall lie from decree or order passed by the Family Court with the consent of the parties. It was further urged that as the amount of Rs. 60,000. 00- has been awarded against the husband as permanent alimony payable to the wife which was totally illegal and without taking into account the factors or circumstances mentioned in Section 25 of the Act as to how permanent alimony has to be fixed Consequently the judgment and decree could not be said to be a judgment passed on the basis of compromise or with the consent of the parties.

( 4 ) WE have perused the judgment. The conditions under Section 25 are that the court shall fix the amount of permanent alimony having regard to the respondents own income and other property, if any, conduct of the parties and circumstances of the case. In the present case we have noticed that both the parties have jointly filed the application and the averments contained therein have been stated on oath. Both the parties have signed it. The contents were taken down on the diction of the court. It was specifically agreed upon by the husband, the appellant, that whatever amount of compensation or amount in the form of permanent alimony will be fixed by the Court, he would pay it. If the court has taken into account th