Background of the Case
Kerala High Court ruled that the Family Court was justified in granting a divorce by mutual consent, even though the wife later withdrew her consent. The case involved an appeal by the wife challenging the Family Court’s decision to dissolve the marriage under Section 10A of the Divorce Act, 1869.
Mediation and Settlement
The couple had multiple legal disputes, which were resolved through mediation. An agreement was reached where the husband paid the wife approximately Rs. 6 lakhs. However, the wife later claimed she had signed the mediation agreement under pressure and was not willing to proceed with the divorce by mutual consent.
Family Court's Decision
The Kerala High Court Division Bench, comprising Justice Anu Sivaraman and Justice C. Pratheep Kumar, noted that several cases between the couple, including those related to divorce, child custody, and patrimony, were settled in mediation. The parties agreed to divorce by mutual consent, filed a joint petition, received partial payments, and resolved pending cases. Despite this, the wife withdrew her consent when the case was at the final stage for recording evidence.
Legal Representation
Advocate Bobby Rapheal C. represented the wife (appellant), while Advocate Sheeba Mariam J. represented the husband (respondent).
Court's Rationale
The Court referenced previous judgments, specifically Prakash Alumal Kalandari v. Jahnavi Prakash Kalandari and Benny v. Mini, to justify its decision. It emphasized that unilateral withdrawal of consent after one party has fulfilled their part of the agreement undermines the justice system.
Key Judgments Cited
Citing the Benny v. Mini case, the Court highlighted that such a withdrawal of consent is unacceptable as it would erode litigants' trust in the justice system. The Court stated, "Unilateral withdrawal by one party after the other party has performed his part of the terms in the memorandum of agreement is a sharp practice which cannot be permitted or tolerated for a moment as it would shatter the faith of the litigants in the justice delivery system and make a mockery of the alternative dispute resolution mechanism."
Conclusion
The Family Court's decision to dissolve the marriage under Section 10A was upheld, and the wife's appeal was dismissed. The case, titled Dr. Jinu Joy v. Dr. Bony Baiju (Neutral Citation: 2024: KER:20127), saw Advocates Bobby Rapheal C. and E.C. Poulose appearing for the appellant and Advocates Sheeba Mariam J. and Arundhathy K. Alias for the respondent.
Comments