ORDER :

Shri Ankur Mody, Counsel for the applicant

None for the respondent, though served.

Heard finally.

2. This Civil Revision under section 115 of Civil Procedure Code, has been filed challenging the order dated 20-11-2017 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Datia in case No. 177/2015, by which the application filed the applicant for dismissal of proceedings initiated by the respondent for recall of compromise decree has been rejected.

3. The necessary facts of the disposal of the present revision in short are that the parties are husband and wife. They filed an application under Section 13(B) of Hindu Marriage Act, for grant of divorce on mutual basis. The Trial Court granted a decree of divorce on mutual basis.

4. The respondent, thereafter, filed an application for recall of compromise decree on the ground that the same was obtained by the applicant, by playing fraud on her. It was pleaded by the respondent, that the applicant had persuaded her to obtain a decree of divorce as the same is required for some official work, however, he further promised that he would continue to maintain the respondent and her daughter. Being the obedient wife, the respondent signed the papers. However, after the decree of divorce was passed, the behavior of the applicant has changed and now he is insisting that the respondent should leave her matrimonial house and is now threatening that he would perform second marriage.

5. The applicant filed an application under Order 7, Rule 11, Civil Procedure Code for dismissal of the application.

6. The Court below, by the impugned order, has rejected the application filed under Order 7, Rule 11, Civil Procedure Code.

7. Challenging the impugned order dated 20-11-2017, it is submitted by the Counsel for the appellant as a compromise decree has been drawn, therefore, the only option available with the respondent is to file a civil suit for declaration of the compromise decree as null and void being obtained by fraud, and not for recall of compromise decree. The Counsel for the applicant, in support of his contention has relied upon the judgment passed by Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Anita vs. R. Rambilas, reported in AIR 2003 AP 32.

8. None for the respondent, though served.

9. Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant.

10. In the case of Anita vs. R. Rambilas (supra), it has been held by the High Court, that the only option available with the litigant is to file a separate suit for challenging the compromise decree. However, the provision of Order 23, Rule 3-A of Civil Procedure Code has not been taken into consideration.

11. Order 23, Rule 3-A of Civil Procedure Code reads as under :

“3-A. Bar to suit : No suit shall lie to set aside a decree on the ground that the compromise on which the decree is based was not lawful.”

12. Thus, the observation made by the High Court in the case of Anita vs. R. Rambilas (supra) to challenge a compromise decree, only a separate suit is maintainable, is contrary to the provisions of Order 23, Rule 3-A of Civil Procedure Code.

13. Where a compromise decree has been passed, a party to the litigation will have a remedy of filing an appeal as per Order 43, Rule 1-A(2) of Civil Procedure Code which reads as under :

“1-A. Right to challenge non-appeal able orders in appeal against decrees - (1) Where any order is made under this Code against a party and thereupon any judgment is pronounced against such party and a decree is drawn up, such party may, in an appeal against the decree, contend that such order should not have been made and the judgment should not have been pronounced.

(2) In an appeal against a decree passed in a suit after recording a compromise or refusing to record a compromise, it shall be open to the appellant to contents the decree on the ground that the compromise should, or should not, have been recorded.

2. Procedure – The rules of Order XLI shall apply, so far as may be, to appeals from orders.”

14. Thus, it is clear that against a compromise decree, a