MACT | Fraud Vitiates All Judicial Acts, Even Without Specific Review Powers: Rajasthan High Court    |     Right of Private Defense Cannot Be Weighed in Golden Scales: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Appellant in Culpable Homicide Case    |     Pre-Arrest Bail Not a Right but an Exception: Himachal High Court Denied Bail In Dowry Death Case"    |     Service Law | Similarly Situated Employees Cannot Be Denied Equal Treatment: PH High Court Orders Regularization    |     Presumption of Innocence Remains Supreme Unless Clearly Overturned: PH High Court Affirming Acquittal    |     Any Physical Liaison with A Girl Of Less Than Eighteen Years Is A Strict Offense.: Patna High Court Reiterates Strict Stance On Sexual Offences Against Minors    |     Orissa High Court Rules Res Judicata Inapplicable When Multiple Appeals Arise from Same Judgment    |     Mandatory Section 80 Notice Cannot Be Bypassed Lightly:  Jammu & Kashmir High Court Returns Plaint for Non-Compliance    |     Bombay High Court Denies Permanent Lecturer Appointment for Failing to Meet UGC Eligibility Criteria at Time of Appointment    |     Deferred Cross-Examination Gave Time for Witness Tampering, Undermining Fair Trial: Allahabad High Court    |     Dowry Death | Presumption Under Section 113-B Not Applicable as No Proof of Cruelty Soon Before Death : Supreme Court    |     Land Acquisition | Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. (JAL) Liable for Compensation under Supplementary Award, Not Ultra-Tech Cement Ltd.: Supreme Court    |     Non-Mentioning of Bail Orders in Detention Reflects Clear Non-Application of Mind: J&K High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Order    |     Conviction Under Arms Act and Criminal Conspiracy Quashed Due to Non-Seizure of Key Evidence and Failure to Prove Ownership of Box: Jharkhand High Court    |    

Consent Once Given Cannot Be Withdrawn at Convenience: Kerala High Court Upholds Divorce Decree in Mutual Consent Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment, the Kerala High Court has ruled that withdrawing consent for a mutual divorce at a late stage, after partially complying with the terms of a mediation agreement, cannot be permitted. The Bench comprising Honorable Mrs. Justice Anu Sivaraman and Mr. Justice C. Pratheep Kumar dismissed an appeal against the dissolution of marriage granted by the Family Court, Ernakulam.

The crux of the judgment revolved around the legal validity of withdrawing consent for a divorce by mutual consent under Section 10A of the Divorce Act, post partial compliance with a mediation agreement's terms.

Dr. Jinu Joy, the appellant, contested the dissolution of her marriage with Dr. Bony Baiju. Following marital discord and several litigations, both parties had entered into a mediation agreement, agreeing to dissolve their marriage and settle financial and custody terms. After complying with part of the agreement, Dr. Joy withdrew her consent for divorce, leading to this appeal.

The High Court extensively reviewed precedents, including "Prakash Alumal Kalandari v. Jahnavi Prakash Kalandari [AIR 2011 Bom. 119]" and "Benny v. Mini [2021 (2) KLJ 190]". Emphasizing these rulings, Justice Pratheep Kumar noted, "Once parties agree to file a joint petition pursuant to an agreement in pending proceedings, they are estopped from resiling from the agreement." The Court found that unilateral withdrawal of consent, particularly after one party has performed their part, is a malpractice that undermines the justice system's integrity and the alternative dispute resolution mechanism.

Upholding the Family Court’s decision, the High Court dismissed the appeal, observing no legal flaw in the Family Court's approach. The judges remarked, "In the present case, the appellant withdrew her consent at the final stage, which is contrary to the spirit of mutual consent. Thus, the Family Court was justified in its decree."

Date of Decision: March 15, 2024

"Dr. Jinu Joy Vs. Dr. Bony Baiju"

Similar News