Appeal against mutual consent divorce not maintainable: Punjab and Haryana High Court

Saurabh Malik

Chandigarh, August 1
The Punjab and Haryana High Court ruled that appeals against divorce decrees based on mutual consent are not maintainable. A Division Bench made it clear that allowing parties to retract their sworn statements after obtaining the decree under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act would amount to contempt of court and perjury, undermining the court’s authority and making a mockery of its verdict.
The Bench of Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Sudeepti Sharma asserted that matrimonial appeals often remained pending for extended periods, exacerbating the significant backlog of cases. Permitting parties to seek reconciliation after voluntarily dissolving their marriage through mutual consent would only worsen the backlog.

The Bench observed: “Given the significant pendency in the courts, allowing parties to further delay proceedings by seeking to set aside a decree, they initially sought by giving their mutual consent, would only make the backlog worse”.
Elaborating, the Bench asserted the parties were bound by their statement once they had furnished the same under oath declaring their intent to separate. Any attempt to reverse the decision would violate the sanctity of the court’s proceedings.

The Bench further stated that the Contempt of Court Act was enacted to ensure that litigants respected the judgments passed by courts. If the courts were to entertain such appeals, it would diminish the deterrent effect of the contempt law.
The Bench asserted: “Permitting parties to subsequently retract their sworn statements and assert a desire to reconcile by stating that they have realised their mistake and now they want to live together would amount/constitute contempt of court and perjury. Additionally, this behaviour would undermine the authority of the Court. Insult its proceedings and make a mockery of its verdict.”

Referring to the technical aspect of the matter, the Bench asserted the Legislature’s intention under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act was to allow appeals against all decrees issued by the court, except the ones granted under Section 13-B pertaining to divorce by mutual consent.

Section 96(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure (CrPC) barred appeals against decrees passed with the parties’ consent. As such, appeal would not lie against a decree granted under Section 13B involving mutual consent. An appeal under Section 13B would only be maintainable if it was claimed that the consent was obtained through force, fraud, or undue influence.