1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO.93 OF 2009 Kumar Pallavi Samir Rajan Ms. Pallavi Pankajkumar Sinha (at present) ..Appellant. Versus Kumar Samir Rajan Sushilkumar ..Respondent. Ms.Pallavi Pankajkumar, present in person. None for the Respondent. CORAM : B.H. MARLAPALLE AND S.J. VAZIFDAR, JJ. DATED : 18TH JUNE, 2009 P.C. :- We have heard Ms.Pallavi Pankajkumar Sinha, the party in person. 2. This Appeal impugns the order dated 13.3.2009 passed by the Family Court, thereby rejecting the Civil Miscellaneous Application No.4 of 2008 arising out of Petition No.A 1705 of 2006. 3. It is seen from the record, that Petition No.A 1705 of 2006 came to be amended so as to seek divorce by consent under section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 so as to convert the same into a 2 petition under section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and, thereafter, consent terms signed by both the parties in the presence of the marriage counselor on 10.7.2007 were submitted to the Court in the said petition. 4. On 24.7.2007, the Family Court granted the decree of divorce by consent and, dissolved the marriage solemnised between the parties on 21.2.2003 and the decree of divorce was passed in terms of Exhibit 24 (consent terms). 5. On or about 7.12.2007 the present Appellant submitted an application for setting aside the order dated 24.7.2007 as well as the consent terms/decree passed on that date by the Family Court and this application was registered as Civil Miscellaneous Application No.4 of 2008. By the impugned order, the said application has been rejected. 6. When this Appeal was taken up for hearing, the Appellant stated that her grievance is very limited and only to the extent of return of streedhan by the Respondent and she clearly stated before us that she has given up her challenge to the decree of divorce granted on 24.7.2007. 7. A perusal of paragraph 2 of the impugned order indicates that the grievance regarding the return of streedhan was sought to be agitated in oral arguments and, in the Miscellaneous Application filed, 3 there was no such prayer for return of streedhan. The learned Judge of the Family Court was right in holding that the decree of divorce granted on 24.7.2007 could not be a subject matter of appeal before the very same Court. At the same time, the decree of divorce by consent is not appealable under section 19(2) of the Family Court’s Act, 1984. 8. If the Appellant had any grievance against the decree of divorce or against the consent terms, certainly, her remedy was not before the Family Court and, therefore, Civil Miscellaneous Application No.4 of 2008 has been rightly rejected by the impugned order. 9. Without going into the issue of the maintainability of this Appeal, we are satisfied that the impugned order does not call for any interference and, therefore, this Appeal must fail in limini, the same is hereby dismissed. 10. If the Appellant files a fresh application alongwith the list of streedhan she alleges to have left in her matrimonial home during her stay with the Respondent from 21.2.2003 to October, 2004, before the Family Court, the same shall be heard and decided on its own merits and as expeditiously as possible, and without being influenced by the impugned order. (S.J. VAZIFDAR, J.) (B.H. MARLAPALLE, J.)