An appeal against a consent decree is not maintainable unless established that no lawful compromise existed.

HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE ANURADHA SHUKLA nd ON THE 2 OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 FIRST APPEAL No. 1081 of 2025 KOMAL KUMARI Versus RAJESH SHARAMA Appearance:

Shri Naveen Vaswani and Ms. Kaushiki Mishra - Advocates for appellant.

Ms. Sonali Shrivastava - Advocate for respondent.

ORDER Per: Justice Vishal Dhagat Appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 challenging judgment and consent decree dated 29.03.2023 passed under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 .

Counsel appearing for appellant has challenged the said judgment and decree on grounds that appellant and respondent were not living separately for more than one year, consent was not granted freely and voluntarily and there was undue influence and coercion. On such grounds, counsel appearing for appellant prays for admission of this appeal.

Counsel appearing for respondent opposed the prayer made by counsel for appellant. Reliance is placed on judgment passed by a Division Bench of Signature Not Verified Signed by: POONAM this Court in First Appeal No.1523 of 2023 ( Smt. Adity Chakraverty Vs. Teevan Prasad Prajapati ). In said case, reliance is placed on judgment passed by Apex Court in case of Pushpa Devi Bhagat Vs. Rajinder Singh (2006) 5 SCC 566 and also Rama Narang Vs. Ramesh Narang (2006) 11 SCC 114 . In case of Pushpa Devi (Supra) Apex Court held as under :- “17. The position that emerges from the amended provisions of Order 23, can be summed up thus:

(i) No appeal is maintainable against a consent decree having regard to the specific bar contained in section

96(3) CPC.

(ii) No appeal is maintainable against the order of the court recording the compromise (or refusing to record a compromise) in view of the deletion of clause (m) Rule

1 Order 43.

(iii) No independent suit can be filed for setting aside a compromise decree on the ground that the compromise was not lawful in view of the bar contained in Rule 3A. (iv) A consent decree operates as an estoppel and is valid and binding unless it is set aside by the court which passed the consent decree, by an order on an application under the proviso to Rule 3 of Order 23. Therefore, the only remedy available to a party to a consent decree to avoid such consent decree, is to approach the court which recorded the compromise and made a decree in terms of it, and establish that there was no compromise."

On the basis of law laid down by Apex Court, it is clear that appeal is not maintainable against a consent decree, as there is specific bar under Signature Not Verified Signed by: POONAM Section 96(3) of CPC. It has further laid down that only remedy available to the parties to consent decree to avoid such consent decree is to approach the Court which recorded the compromise and made decree in terms of it and establish that there was no compromise.

In view of aforesaid, no case is made out for admission. Consent decree has been passed. Appeal against consent decree is not maintainable. Pleadings of appellant that there was force and coercion cannot be examined in this appeal in absence of any evidence.

In view of the same, appeal is dismissed with liberty to appellant to approach the same Court which passed judgment and decree to show that there was force and coercion upon him.

Consequently, this first appeal is dismissed.