The Kerala High Court upholds dissolution of marriage observing that a wife can’t unilaterally withdraw consent for divorce after a settlement during mediation.

The Kerala High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by the wife against the order of a family court dissolving her marriage with the respondent husband under section 10 of the Divorce Act.
The facts leading to the present Appeal are that appellant wife and her husband who is respondent before the High Court were married in the year 2014 and a male child was born out of the wedlock. However their relationship was strained to an extent that they were residing separately since 2018. There were several litigations between the parties and both the parties agreed to dissolve their marriage through mutual consent. All the disputes were settled in mediation and as per the terms of the settlement the respondent husband had agreed to pay Rs.16 lakhs to the appellant and besides he also agreed to the appellant’s right to guardianship and custody of their child.
 
However when the matter was taken up after the waiting period of six months the appellant withdrew her consent for dissolution of her marriage through mutual consent. While on the other hand the respondent husband filed an interim application before the family court praying for allowing the divorce petition and accepting the demand draft for the balance amount as agreed in settlement. The family court while relying on the judgment of Benny vs. Mini 2021 (2) KLJ allowed the interim application of the respondent husband and dissolved the marriage. Aggrieved by the order and judgment of the family court the appellant approached the High Court.
 
The High Court held thus:
 
Relying upon the decision of Bombay High Court in Prakash Alumal Kalandari (supra), a Division Bench of this Court in Benny v. Mini (supra), in a similar instance held in paragraph 24 as follows: 
 
“24. Following the judgment in Prakash Alumal Kalandari(supra),we hold that once the parties agree to file a joint petition, pursuant to an agreement/compromise in pending proceedings, then the parties are estopped from resiling from the agreement. Therefore, the unilateral withdrawal of consent by the respondent, especially after the appellant has performed his part of the terms in the memorandum of agreement, is only 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 alternative dispute resolution mechanism.”
 
In the above circumstances, the present case is one coming within the ambit of the decision in Prakash Alumal Kalandari (supra) and Benny (supra) and as such in spite of the subsequent withdrawal of consent by the appellant, the Family Court was justified in decreeing the O.P. We do not find any illegality or irregularity in the finding in the impugned judgment of the Family Court and as such this appeal is liable to be dismissed.
 

MAT.APPEAL NO. 894 OF 2023