The High Court of Jharkhand has set aside a decree of divorce granted by a Family Court in Ranchi, ruling that the lower court failed to perform its mandatory judicial duty by neglecting to verify essential foundational facts before dissolving a marriage by mutual consent. The Division Bench, comprising Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Sanjay Prasad, emphasized that judicial bodies cannot treat marriage dissolution as a mere administrative process when statutory requirements, such as the minimum period of separation, are in direct dispute.

The legal challenge was brought before the High Court by a wife who contested the validity of a divorce decree dated August 17, 2024. According to the original judgment of the Family Court, the marriage had been solemnized on April 21, 2023, and the parties had lived separately since June 1, 2023. Based on these dates, the Family Court accepted the petition filed on June 12, 2024, for divorce under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. However, the appellant-wife successfully argued that the actual date of marriage was April 21, 2024, meaning that the statutory requirement of one year of separation had not been met when the divorce petition was filed.

The High Court observed that this discrepancy was not a minor clerical error but a fundamental challenge to the court's jurisdiction . The Bench noted that the Family Court had accepted the husband's version of the timeline without proper verification against contemporaneous documents . Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad, delivering the verdict, remarked, "The learned Additional Family Judge, appears to have overlooked certain basic aspects of the Hindu Marriage Act. By proceeding to decree the matter without first determining the actual date of marriage, the Court below has inadvertently caused prejudice to the appellant."

Beyond the dispute over the timeline, the appellant-wife raised serious allegations regarding the integrity of the consent process. She contended that she had been subjected to physical and mental harassment, including an alleged incident where she was taken to a hospital while three months pregnant and coerced into signing papers. She further alleged that her pregnancy was terminated forcibly through medication after her return from the hospital. The appellant argued that the consent recorded by the Family Court was neither free nor voluntary and that her signatures were obtained under extreme duress.

The respondent-husband had maintained that the parties reached a mutual settlement during mediation, including a financial arrangement of 400,000 rupees and the return of Stridhan. However, the High Court identified further irregularities, noting that the evidence from the husband's own cross-examination raised doubts about whether this financial settlement had actually been executed. The Court pointed out that parts of the agreement document appeared to have been altered or crossed out, casting further suspicion on the veracity of the claims made during the lower court proceedings.

In its analysis, the Division Bench clarified that while a decree of divorce by mutual consent is typically not appealable under Section 19(2) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 , the bar does not apply when the decree itself is fundamentally flawed or when the consent is alleged to have been procured by fraud , coercion , or misrepresentation . The court stated, "Even a consent decree may be assailable where the consent itself is in question and the statutory safeguards have not been observed. Accordingly, an appeal against such a decree is maintainable, subject to objections raised by the opposite party."

The High Court underscored that Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act imposes a strict duty on the court to ensure that the petition is not filed impulsively and that the parties have had sufficient time to reflect on the dissolution of their marriage. The statutory "cooling-off" period and the requirement of one year of separation serve as essential safeguards against hasty decisions. By failing to verify whether these conditions were satisfied, the Family Court had effectively bypassed the protective intent of the law.

The Court’s ruling stressed that a settlement reached through mediation cannot act as a substitute for judicial satisfaction . The judge is duty-bound to conduct an inquiry into the genuineness of the consent to ensure the parties are not being misled or coerced. "The Court is obliged to make requisite inquiry in the matter before proceeding to pass a decree of divorce by mutual consent ," the Bench noted in its judgment.

Consequently, the High Court quashed the divorce decree and restored the original suit to the file of the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi. The parties have been directed to appear before the Family Court within six weeks to lead evidence on the actual date of marriage, the validity of the financial settlement, and the voluntariness of the appellant’s consent. The High Court further clarified that the setting aside of the decree does not constitute a final judgment on the truth of the appellant's allegations but rather ensures that a transparent and thorough judicial inquiry will take place. This decision reinforces the principle that the sanctity of the marital bond and the protection of the parties involved remain paramount, necessitating rigorous judicial oversight in all divorce proceedings, regardless of whether the parties appear to be in mutual agreement.