High Court quashes order permitting withdrawal of divorce by mutual consent

Saurabh Malik
Tribune News Service
Chandigarh, August 1
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that once a spouse agrees to a mutual consent divorce under oath, the consent cannot be taken back unless there is clear evidence of fraud, misrepresentation or coercion. This decision came after an appeal against a Family Court order that allowed such a withdrawal, resulting in the dismissal of the mutual consent divorce petition.
The case began when a couple filed a joint petition for divorce under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, expressing their mutual consent to end their marriage. Both parties initially recorded their first motion statements, confirming their agreement to the divorce terms, including a settlement of Rs 40 lakh for maintenance. However, the wife later sought to withdraw her consent, leading to the Family Court’’s order dismissing the petition and instructing her to return the amount received.
The High Court’’s Bench, comprising Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Sudeepthi Sharma, found the Family Court’’s order to be procedurally and legally flawed. The court emphasised that once a first motion statement was made under oath, it held a significant legal weight and couldn’t be retracted lightly. The ruling highlighted that without specific pleadings and evidence showing that the consent was obtained through fraud, misrepresentation or coercion, the withdrawal of consent should not be permitted.
Justice Thakur pointed out the necessity for maintaining the sanctity and efficacy of judicial proceedings. The HC noted that the court had erred in allowing the wife
to withdraw her consent solely based on her statement, without any supporting evidence of wrongdoing by the husband. The judgment underscored that the court should have struck an issue, received evidence, and only then made a determination on the validity of the withdrawal.
The High Court quashed the Family Court’’s order dated February 11, 2022, and reinstated the mutual consent divorce petition to its original number. The court directed both parties to appear before the Family Court to record their second motion statements, which are required to finalise the mutual consent divorce. The ruling also pointed out that the court’’s failure to adhere to procedural requirements constituted a gross legal and procedural fallacy, thereby necessitating correction.
This ruling has significant implications for the handling of mutual consent divorces. It reinforces the legal principle that statements made under oath in judicial proceedings are binding and cannot be easily retracted. The decision is aimed at preventing the abuse of the judicial process and ensures that the integrity of mutual consent divorce proceedings is upheld.
The judgment also serves as a caution to lower courts to meticulously follow procedural norms and not to permit the withdrawal of consent without substantial and convincing evidence. This ensures the finality and reliability of judicial orders, thereby protecting the interests of both parties involved in mutual consent divorce proceedings.

No supporting evidence
The HC noted that the Family Court had erred in allowing the wife to withdraw her consent solely based on her statement, without any supporting evidence of wrongdoing by the husband. The judgment underscored that the court should have struck an issue, received evidence, and only then made a determination on the validity of the withdrawal.