Mutual consent for divorce can’t be unilaterally withdrawn without sufficient cause: HC

The Nagpur bench of the Bombay high court has said that the mutual consent given for divorce cannot be unilaterally withdrawn by a spouse without a sufficient and just cause

The Nagpur bench of the Bombay high court has said that the mutual consent given for divorce cannot be unilaterally withdrawn by a spouse without a sufficient and just cause.

The Bombay high court. HT/File

A single-judge bench of justice M S Jawalkar upheld the decision of a senior judge civil division at Yavatmal to grant decree to a 48-year-old Nagpur resident, ignoring unilateral withdrawal of consent by his wife, though she had already received half of the one-time alimony from her husband.

The couple, who had married in February 1998, had approached the local court after a matrimonial dispute cropped up between them and they started residing separately. The woman had filed for restitution of conjugal rights, whereas the man had sought divorce.

The husband moved in an appeal before the district judge after the first court rejected his plea and allowed the plea of his wife. In November 2013, the appellate court referred them to a Lok Adalat, where they decided to file for divorce by mutual consent and also finalised the terms of divorce.

The trial court, however, refused to take her unilateral withdrawal of consent into account and on February 3, 2015, dissolved the marriage by mutual consent.

The husband had moved the high court after the district judge struck down the decree. But the high court struck down the district judge’s order and upheld the decree.

The HC said the husband acted to her prejudice by accepting the terms of compromise - withdrew his appeal, paid half of the alimony - and therefore, the wife was “stopped from withdrawing her consent”.

Justice Jawalkar said as held in a 2011 decision of the HC, the consent could not be withdrawn unilaterally unless there was sufficient and just cause, and the decree passed by the trial court was perfectly justified as there was no sufficient, good, and just cause for such withdrawal on vague allegations.