1 ssp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5918 OF 2009 Mrs.Asha Shyam Gupta ...Petitioner vs. Shyam Babulal Gupta ...Respondent Ms Latika Belindage for the petitioner Ms Smita Telong for the respondent CORAM :A.S.OKA,J. DATE : MARCH 30, 2010 P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The order dated 25 th July 2009 passed by this Court records that this petition arises out of provisions of Code of Civil Procedure,1908. From August 2009, this petition was pending as the parties were making an effort to arrive at an amicable settlement. After granting number of adjournments, settlement could not be arrived at. 2 I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the petition. The petitioner is the wife and the respondent is the husband. A petition for divorce was filed by the petitioner against the respondent under section 13(1) (i-a) of Hindu Marriage Act,1955. Consent terms were filed by the parties on 25 th September 2008. Material clauses in the consent terms with which we are concerned in this petition are clauses 6 to 8 which read thus : 6 It is agreed between the parties that flat no.B 305, Gagangiri Sector 17 Vashi Mumbai 400 705 will be sold and or disposed off on or 2 before April 2009. Out of the sale proceeding after deducting the society dues paid by the petitioner and the dues till the house is sold will be deducted. Out of the remaining amount 75% amount will be given to the petitioner as her share and her sons share and 25% amount will be given to the respondent as his share. 7 Both the parties will find out the market value of the said flat from the appropriate person and which ever is higher the flat will be sold at that rate. 8 If the petitioner is able to arrange the funds for paying of the 25% share of the respondent as per the rate decided by above clause she will pay the same and in such events the respondent will co-operate to sign and execute proper documents for transferring the flat in petitioner s name. 3 In view of the settlement arrived at, parties agreed for dissolving the marriage by decree of divorce by mutual consent. 4 An application was made by the petitioner for withdrawal of the consent. By the impugned order, the said application has been rejected. 5 The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there were several grounds available to withdraw the consent. However, the concerned Advocate has not pleaded all the grounds. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the maintenance amount has not been paid by the respondent. She submitted that the 3 finding recorded by the learned Judge of the Family Court that the respondent-husband has complied with a part of the consent terms is completely erroneous. She, therefore, submitted that the petitioner ought to have been permitted to withdraw the consent terms. 6 I have carefully considered the submissions. Clauses 6 to 8 of the consent terms are already reproduced above. The only ground on which the petitioner prayed for grant of permission to withdraw the consent terms reads thus : I say that when I entered into consent term dated 25-9-2008 the property prices were very high and I was expecting that I would get substantial amount from which I would buy or decent house and save some amount which would enable me to look after myself and sons as well as his education. But unfortunately today the property prices have gone very low and from that amount, I cannot arrange for myself and my two sons day to day expenditure or for their educational expenses and for our shelter. I say that for my two children s well being and welfare I desire to withdraw my consent given vide the consent term dated 25-9-2008. 7 Thus, the only ground in the application is that the prices of immoveable property have come down after date of filing the consent terms. This is no ground to withdraw the consent especially in view of clause 8 of the consent terms. There is no allegation that the petitioner was compelled to sign the consent terms. There 4 is no allegation that the consent of the petitioner was obtained by force or fraud or by misrepresentation. There is no other ground pleaded on the basis on which the consent for passing a decree under section 13(B) could have been lawfully withdrawn. Taking the averments made in the application by the petitioner as it is, no ground was made out on which the petitioner could have been permitted to withdraw the consent. Therefore, it is not possible to find fault with the impugned order of rejecting the said application. In writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, no case for interference is made out. Writ Petition is rejected. All contentions of the parties on merits of the pending petition are kept open. JUDGE