Priyanka Pandey v. Gautam Kumar Shukla

1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 read with Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as, ‘HMA’), challenging the Judgment and Decree dated 11.11.2024 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Dwarka District Court, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as, ‘learned Family Court’) in HMA No. 2951/2024, titled Priyanka Pandey v. Gautam Kumar Shukla, whereby the learned Family Court has passed a decree of divorce by mutual consent on second motion petition under Section 13B(2) of HMA.

2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the aforesaid Decree of divorce by mutual consent under Section 13B(2) of the HMA was fraudulently obtained by the respondent by way of misrepresentation, coercion, fabrication of documents, including the forged signatures and thumb impressions of the appellant. It is further contended that the respondent perpetrated a well-orchestrated fraud upon the appellant and the learned Family Court, by fabricating evidence, manipulating jurisdiction, and securing consent for mutual divorce through coercion, deceit and misrepresentation.

3. As per the averment of the appellant, the respondent fabricated a fraudulent rent agreement so as to establish the jurisdiction of the Courts at Dwarka and to create an illusion of separation, even though the parties were cohabiting at the house in Haryana. To this effect, reliance is placed on the appellant’s employment records and rental receipts as also photographs.

4. It is further contended that during the first motion hearing, the appellant appeared before the learned Family Court with the respondent, who assured that the proceedings were a mere formality for obtaining a Marriage Registration Certificate. It is further contended that when the learned Family Court questioned the appellant about the payment of money agreed upon as part of the settlement, the respondent subtly prompted her to answer affirmatively, and the appellant, under the impression that this was part of the formalities as explained by the respondent, stated that she had received the money which she never did and nor was interested in the same. It is contended that when the learned Family Court asked both parties to sign their statements, before signing, the appellant had expressed hesitation, requesting to read the documents but the respondent again intervened and misrepresented, so she signed the documents without reading it thoroughly.

5. On the day of Second motion petition hearing also, the respondent presented the appellant with a demand draft and preemptively instructed her to receive it before the learned Family Court and made her sign the statements in the Court, and he stated to the appellant that accepting the demand draft was simply a procedural requirement for getting the marriage certificate. However, thereafter, outside the courtroom, the respondent snatched the demand draft from her.

6. It is stated that by taking undue advantage of her maternal instincts and genuine hope for a better future, the respondent deceitfully secured her unchallenged consent, knowing well her aspiration to become a mother and save her marriage.

7. It is further contended that during the second motion, when she became suspicious of the situation, she confronted the respondent but he threatened to commit suicide and leave a note implicating her unless she agreed to sign the requisite documentation in the Court, so she was coerced to sign the statement in the Court. It is further claimed that, in fact, during the pendency of the divorce proceedings, the parties stayed together and cohabitated and they maintained both physical and emotional relations.

8. We have considered the contentions made by the appellant and have perused the record.

9. The appeal being against the Decree of dissolution of marriage by mutual consent, straightway, an enquiry is to be made how the appeal is maintainable, inasmuch as an appeal against a consent decree is not available in law, in view of the Section 19(2) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 which bars any appeal from a decree or order passed by the Family Court with the consent of the parties.

10. In Anshu Malhotra v. Mukesh Malhotra, 2020:DHC:2021-DB, this Court held that the remedy of a party challenging a decree of divorce granted by mutual consent is in approaching the learned Family Court itself. It held as under:

the appellate court to enter into the inquiry into the said facts and if the same is done, would also deprive the parties of an important right of appeal, by converting the appellate court into a fact finding court.”

11. The Supreme Court, by its Order dated 24.02.2025 passed in SLP (C) No.4530/2025, titled “Manisha Anand v. Nilesh Anand”, has also held that in such challenge, the proper remedy is to approach the Family Court itself for recall of the Consent Decree, rather than filing an appeal. We quote from the Order as under:

12. In the present case, from the list of dates and events filed by the appellant, it appears that the appellant filed a Review Application before the learned Family Court on 17.01.2025. The same appears to have been withdrawn by the appellant on 12.02.2025. Curiously, neither the review petition nor the Order of his withdrawal has been placed on record by the appellant.