1 PGK IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE Writ Petition No.198 of 2010 Geeta Suresh Beloshe .. .. Petitioner v/s. Suresh Mahadeo Beloshe .. .. Respondent Mr.V.S. Paradkar for Petitioner. Mr.Abhay Thorat for Respondent. ----- CORAM : SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATED : 11th January, 2010 P.C. : 1.Heard both parties. 2.Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. 3.This Petition impugns the order of the Family Court No. 6, Mumbai, dated 11.9.2009, refusing to allow the Petitioner-wife for resiling from the Consent Terms that she has filed before the Court on 10.7.2008. 4.No reason for resiling from the Consent Terms is stated. It is the Petitioner-wife s case that unilaterally and without any reason at any time after signing the Consent Terms, she can withdraw from the Consent Terms and have it resiled. The learned Judge 2 has considered this aspect. 5.The Petitioner s Advocate drew my attention to the Roznama of the Suit. He contended that on 10.7.2008, the Advocate for the Petitioner-wife (who was the Respondent in that Petition) filed his vakalatnama. Certain interim order was passed earlier in the Petition for maintenance for the two children, whose custody is with the wife. The maintenance amount was not paid. The wife had filed an Application for dismissal of the Petition under the provisions of Order 39 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. That Application was to be heard. Both the parties had appeared and were represented by their respective Advocates. On that day, the Consent Terms came to be filed. 6.The Consent Terms are the usual Consent Terms filed by parties after much litigation when they accept their situation and decide to withdraw allegations so as to amicably bring to an end their broken down marriage. Under the Consent Terms, the parties withdrew all the allegations. Consequently, the wife undertook to withdraw all the complaints filed by her at various Police Stations, inter alia, under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The first 3 clauses of the Consent Terms in this regard are most ordinary. 3 7.The wife has custody of the children. Consequently, the parties agreed that it shall remain with her under Clause 4 of the Consent Terms. The wife can have no grievance against that clause. 8.Consequent upon the custody being with the wife, the husband has been given the usual access on Sundays between 7 p.m. and 9 p.m. at his residence. The wife does not seem to have any grievance against this and her Advocate states before this Court that the access given has not been claimed by the husband. 9.Under Clause 6, the parties agreed that the wife shall not visit the husband s office/shop or his resident. That aspect is also not challenged. 10.Under Clause 7, the parties agreed to have adjudicated the issues in the Petition relating to the wife s entitlement for return of valuable articles, ornaments, etc. for maintenance for herself and for her children and for her stridhan. These are the aspects which are left to be adjudicated since the parties have not resolved those disputes and decided how the movable property would be partitioned or the wife would be given maintenance for herself and her children. 4 11.Under Clause 8, the parties applied for conversion of the Petition for divorce under Section 13 to the Petition for divorce by mutual consent under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act. It is this aspect that the wife now challenges. 12.The learned Judge observed that both the parties had filed the divorce Petitions. Both the parties, therefore, applied for divorce. Both the parties got divorce Petitions, as per their consent, to be converted into the Petition for mutual consent. 13.The parties also led evidence upon such Consent Terms. I am told that the evidence of husband is over. The evidence is only with regard to the maintenance payable and with regard to the properties, including Stridhan. It is thereafter when the wife had to lead her evidence that she sought to resile from the Consent Terms on the ground that she can do it at any time unilaterally. No reason showing how the Consent Terms are detrimental to her is given. The wife could obtain divorce which she had agitated in her own Petition. The same applied for the husband who had not chosen to resile. The learned Judge considered various decisions shown to her for resiling from the Consent Terms. The decisions essentially are to see that if the wife has waived her right of maintenance, or would not otherwise get a 5 benefit which is entitled to her pursuant to the Consent Terms and there is any fraud and/or undue influence practised upon her that she could unilaterally resile from such Consent Terms. It would be absurd and meaningless to allow any party, including the wife, to resile from the Consent Terms at whim unilaterally, without showing any reasons as to how the Consent Terms would be detrimental for her. 14.The learned Judge has accepted the contentions of the husband that the Application is made to harass him and delay the relief. That stands to reason. The Application completely lacks bona fides and is correctly dismissed. 15.Consequently, the Writ Petition is dismissed and Rule is discharged accordingly. 16.Parties shall proceed with the trial as fixed by the learned Judge for adjudicating the claim of maintenance for the wife and the two children, the claim with respect to the valuables and ornaments as well as her stridhan. (SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J.)