dgm gm gm IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE APPELLATE APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO.2260 OF 2009 PETITION NO.2260 OF 2009 PETITION NO.2260 OF 2009 Mr.Oliver Christopher Fernandes Petitioner Vs. Mrs.Mitchel O. Fernandes Respondent. Ms.Eventa A. Gonsalves for the petitioner. Mr.R.S.Upadhyay for the respondent. CORAM CORAM CORAM : : : ANOOP V.MOHTA,J ANOOP V.MOHTA,J ANOOP V.MOHTA,J. DATED DATED DATED : 16th February,2009. : 16th February,2009. : 16th February,2009. P.C. P.C. P.C. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. By consent terms dated 22.08.2008 between the husband and wife i.e. the petitioner and the respondent, a matrimonial dispute was settled. 3. An application dated 26.11.2008 for cancellation of the said consent terms is filed by the wife alleging non-compliance of some conditions. By impugned order dated 26.11.2008 i.e. on the same date without assigning any reason, the said application is allowed and thereby cancelled the consent terms in question. Therefore, on this ground itself, without expressing anything on the merits of the matter, it is ( 2 ) desirable that the learned Judge to give reasons and pass orders after giving hearing to both the parties. The consent terms just cannot be cancelled in such fashion basically in matrimonial matters. The circumstances and/or reasons for non-compliance can be gone into and if case is made out it is only a question of granting some more time to comply with the same. Such cancellation of consent terms definitely affects the basic intention of the parties when they enter into compromise and file consent terms. Such cryptic order on consent terms passed hurriedly is causing injustice to both the parties. Such order is unjust and unreasonable from any point of view. 4. The impugned order dated 26.11.2008 is quashed and set aside. The learned concerned Judge to pass appropriate order after giving opportunity to both the parties. The writ petition is accordingly allowed with no order as to costs. ( ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)