Punjab-Haryana High Court
Veerpal Kaur vs Akashdeep Singh on 5 July, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
242
FAO-2107-2022
Date of decision : 05.07.2022
Veerpal Kaur Appellant
V/S
Akashdeep Singh Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR VERMA
Present: Mr. Tribhawan Singla, Advocate for the appellant.
Ms. Ritu Punj, Advocate for the respondent.
****
RITU BAHRI, J. (ORAL)
The present appeal has been filed against the judgment and
decree dated 19.07.2021 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court
Barnala, whereby petition filed by the parties under Section 13-B of the
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short 'the 1955 Act') for dissolution of
marriage by decree of divorce by mutual consent between the parties,
has been allowed.
The parties solemnized marriage on 24.03.2019 at
Sardulgarh, Punjab as per Sikh rites. On account of temperamental
differences, they started living separately since 20.05.2019. Ultimately,
a petition under Section 13-B of the 1955 Act for dissolution of
marriage by way of mutual consent was filed before the Court of
Principal Judge, Family Court Barnala and the same was allowed vide
judgment and decree dated 19.07.2021.
However, after getting decree of divorce with mutual
1 of 4
consent under Section 13-B of the 1955 Act, the parties have now
reconciled their differences and have started living together as husband
and wife. The present appeal challenging the decree of divorce dated
19.07.2021 has been filed by appellant-wife.
Today, both the parties are present in person in Court with
their respective counsel. Both the parties state that now they are staying
together happily as husband and wife, therefore, the decree of divorce
dated 19.07.2021 granted under Section 13-B of the 1955 Act may be
set aside. In this regard, the parties have attached their separate
affidavits dated 30.04.2022 with the present appeal as Annexures A-2
and A-3. Copy of the Aadhaar card of the appellant also attached with
the present appeal. However, the respondent has filed copy of his
Aadhaar Card in the Court today which is taken on record.
A Division Bench of this Court in Jyoti V/s. Neeraj
Kumar Saini, 2019 (1) R.C.R. (Civil) 748 has observed as under:-
"5. In this regard, learned counsel for the appellants has
referred to a judgment of the division bench of this Court
rendered in the case of Krishna Khetarpal, Headmistress,
Government Girls High School, Bhuna, Tehsil Fatehabad,
District Hisar v. Satish Lal; 1986 (2) PLR 608 in which
the same issue had arisen and it has been decided that the
appeal against the consent decree passed under Section
13B is appealable under Section 28 of the Act and Sub
Section 3 of Section 96 of the CPC has no bar. Since, this
issue is no more res integra as already been decided by
this Court, therefore, we have entertained the appeal."
While referring to the judgment passed in Krishna
Khetarpal's case (supra), the Division Bench had examined this issue
in detail and held that under Section 28 of the Act, an appeal against the
consent decree of divorce under Section 13-B of the Act by either party,
was maintainable, as a matter of right. In para 5 of the said judgment,
2 of 4
the Division Bench has observed as under:-
"An appeal against the decree of divorce by mutual
consent distinctly is not merely on consent of the parties,
for the matrimonial Court is involved in decision making
so that it accords not only with provisions of Section 13-B
of the Act but also Section 23 of the Act. In sub-section 13-
B of the Act, a joint petition by the spouses can be
presented to the District Court on the ground that they
have been living separately for a period of one year or
more before the presentation of the petition and that they
have not been able to live together and further that they
have mutually agreed that the marriage should be
dissolved. The petition then lies in hibernation for six
months and under sub-section (2) both the parties have to
activate it on the motion to the Court. It is then that the
Court enters upon an enquiry into the facts where the
marriage has been solemnized and whether the averments
in the petition are true and further there are no
impediments in the way as conceived of in Section 23 and
in particular of sub-section (1)(bb) that such consent has
not been obtained by force, fraud or undue influence. Thus
a decree for divorce by mutual consent is not based merely
on mutuality of the consenting parties but the court's
involvement in decision making is inextricably a part of
the decree. And since the possibility of an error, legal or
factual, entering in the decision making cannot be ruled
out, an appeal under Section 28 of the Act has advisedly
been provided. Besides, Section 12 of the said Act says
that subject to other provisions contained in the said Act
and to such rules and the High Court may make in this
behalf as proceedings under the said Act shall be
regulated, as far as may be, by the Civil Procedure Code,
1908. Thus the proceedings in the appeal are to be
regulated as far as may be, by the Civil Procedure Code
without altering the substantive right of appeal to the
parties concerned. On the above analysis and
differentiation, the conclusion is inescapable that an
appeal against a consent decree under Section 13B of the
Act is appealable under Section 28 of the Act and sub-
section (3) of the Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code is
no bar. Similarly any other consent decree passed under
the said Act is also appealable."
In view of the above judgment, this Court is of the view
that appeal against the decree of divorce under Section 13-B of the Act
is maintainable. In the present case, after passing of the decree of
divorce, both the parties are staying together happily.
3 of 4
Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of
the case, since the parties are living together, this Court is of the view
that it is never too late to mend ways. Resultantly, the instant appeal is
allowed and the impugned judgment & decree dated 19.07.2021 passed
by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Barnala, vide which marriage of
the parties was dissolved, are set aside.
(RITU BAHRI)
JUDGE
05.07.2022 (ASHOK KUMAR VERMA)
kothiyal JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No
4 of 4
