Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Kerala Division Bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M.B. Snehalatha recently dismissed a matrimonial appeal filed by a wife seeking to withdraw from a jointly filed petition for mutual divorce. The wife had opposed the decree of divorce granted by the family court, alleging she was deceived into agreeing to a condition in the settlement agreement. The Bench noted that she had already received and withdrawn the amount deposited by her husband in fulfilment of his obligations under the settlement. Holding that she could not accept the benefits while refusing consent for divorce, the Court upheld the family court’s order.

The case concerned matrimonial disputes between a husband and wife that began in 2011, leading the wife to initiate proceedings seeking return of her gold and patrimony, maintenance, and criminal action under the Indian Penal Code. In 2016, the parties entered into a settlement agreement during mediation in the maintenance case before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, which was recorded by the court and became the basis for resolving related civil and criminal proceedings.

Also Read: Supreme Court Sets Aside Allahabad High Court Order | Says Trial Court Cannot Take Cognizance of Robbery Charge Solely on Witness Affidavits

Following the settlement, appeals by both parties challenging an earlier family court judgment on return of gold were disposed of by the High Court in terms of the compromise. A criminal case against the husband was also quashed in 2017 by the High Court, noting that the agreement was valid and partly performed.

Subsequently, the husband filed an application for divorce under Section 10A of the Divorce Act, 1869, referring to the settlement. Although the wife initially did not proceed with that application, both parties later jointly filed a fresh petition for mutual consent divorce before the family court, agreeing to specific terms, including payment by the husband and the wife’s agreement to vacate the husband’s family home.

The husband deposited the agreed sum in court and permitted the wife to withdraw it along with a fixed deposit. The wife received the amounts but later refused to consent to the divorce, alleging that she had been deceived into signing the petition and objecting to the requirement to vacate the residence.

The family court found that the wife had voluntarily accepted the financial benefits and could not withdraw consent thereafter. It granted divorce under Section 10A of the Act. The wife appealed this decision, but the High Court held that she could not selectively repudiate the settlement and upheld the family court’s decree.

The Division Bench examined the factual and procedural record and found no dispute regarding the settlement agreement of 16 December 2016. It noted that both parties had acted upon it in several proceedings, and that the High Court itself had earlier recorded the settlement in disposing of related appeals. The Bench referred to its earlier judgment in Crl.MC No.6043/2017, where it was observed: "The first respondent has no case that Annexure-C was not legally sustainable nor that it was obtained under any other vitiating circumstances. No proceedings have been initiated till now to challenge Annexure-C also. Hence, the parties are bound by the terms of the agreement."

It noted: "We have no doubt that the learned Family Court has acted correctly because, Sri.P.M.Abdul Jaleel unequivocally admits before us that his client – the appellant, had withdrawn the amount deposited by the respondent before the learned Court, as also the amount in the Fixed Deposit."

The Court further observed: "In such factual scenario, one fails to fathom how the appellant says that she was made to sign the application employing deceit, when she unreservedly admits that she received the deposited amount and the sums in the Fixed Deposit with full volition."

On the appellant’s refusal to vacate the house, the Court noted: "One surely can gather justifiably from the conduct of the appellant that it is only because she was enjoined under the agreed terms to have vacated herself from the house of her father-in-law, that she did not agree to the Original Petition being ordered."

Also Read: Kerala High Court Dismisses State’s Appeal and Holds Fast-Track Tax Assessments Under Section 17D Must Be Completed Within a Reasonable Time

The Division Bench concluded: "The defence of the appellant is specious, since she virtually says that such part of the application, which is in her favour, was entered into by her voluntarily; while, that which imposes obligation on her was obtained through deceit. This can never be accepted."

The judgment concluded: "This appeal is, therefore, dismissed; however, adverting to the rather peculiar circumstances presented, we make no order as to costs."

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Appellant: Shri P.M. Abdul Jaleel (Kodungallur), Sri K.N. Muhammed Thanveer, Shri Althaf Ahmed Abdu
For the Respondent: Sri T.N. Manoj

Case Title: XXX v YYY
Neutral Citation: 2025: KER:63605
Case Number: Mat.Appeal No.165 of 2022
Bench: Justice Devan Ramachandran, Justice M.B. Snehalatha