IMPORTANT POINT
If petition is filed “simplicitor” under Section 13B of H.M. Act for divorce by mutual consent. Court must satisfy itself that consent given by parties continues till date of granting decree of divorce.

A.M. Khanwilkar, J. —This appeal takes exception to the judgment and decree passed by the Family Court No.3, Pune dated 31st March, 2009 in Petition No.A877/2007. The respondent/wife filed Petition for a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty. The said Petition was contested by the appellant/husband by filing written statement and counter claim. The appellant also prayed for custody of children.

2. The marriage between the appellant (husband) and respondent (wife) was solemnized on 12th August, 1993 at Pune as per the Hindu Vedic rites. After their marriage, they lived and cohabited together initially at Moscow, then at France and lastly at Pune. Two children are born out of the said wedlock namely; daughter Lavanya born on 22nd June, 1995 and son Rahul born on 11th January, 1999. The children are in the care and custody of the respondent mother. The parties started living separately since June, 2006. Since then, there has been no cohabitation between them.

3. During the pendency of the abovesaid Petition, the parties decided to take divorce by mutual consent. Accordingly, Consent Terms were executed and signed by both of them on 6th October, 2008, which were placed on record before the Family Court being Ex. 71. The parties thereafter jointly filed application at Ex. 72 to convert the Petition for divorce into joint Petition for divorce by mutual consent. As per the Consent Terms, the appellant had agreed that the custody of both the children would remain with the respondent wife. The respondent wife on the other hand, agreed to give access of both the children to the appellant during the weekend on every Sunday at the designated place and time and during the Diwali and Christmas vacations every day at the same venue and same time. Insofar as summer vacation, temporary custody of both the children was to be given to the appellant husband for the first half of the vacation when he could take the children away from Pune for vacation under intimation to the respondent wife. The parties also agreed that they would jointly take decision in respect of education and other activities of the children. The appellant agreed to pay maintenance of Rs.5,000 per month for each child with increase at the rate of 15% every two years. The respondent wife waived her claim of maintenance and alimony and her streedhan. The respondent wife also agreed to cooperate with the appellant husband for the transfer of shares, properties-movable and immovable of the respondent in Company KAPEXL Healthcare Private Limited. Besides, both parties agreed to withdraw all the criminal and civil proceedings filed against each other.

4. After filing of Consent Terms recording the above arrangement, the hearing was deferred for some time. The Advocate for the appellant thereafter withdrew his Vakalatnama and on 16th February, 2009, the appellant filed application Ex.80 to withdraw his consent given on the application Ex. 71 to grant divorce by mutual consent. The sole reason mentioned in this application is that the respondent wife failed to comply with her obligation to provide access of the children to the appellant husband. He has asserted that he was therefore withdrawing his consent, keeping in mind the paramount interest and welfare of the children. The said application Exhibit 80 was resisted by the respondent wife by filing reply Ex. 81. According to the respondent, she never refused to grant access of children to the appellant. Whereas, the appellant was arrested in connection with various criminal matters and could not avail of access during the relevant period, as he was in jail. In substance, she refuted the allegations in application Ex. 80 that she failed to comply with any of the terms of Consent Terms executed between the parties. She has also asserted that the children were not keen on meeting the appellant and refused to accompany the appellant, which fact was known to the appellant. She also asserted that the appellant was not paying mai