^" HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH ATB1LASPUR Coram:- ADpeIlant Non-apDlicant Rese.ondent ApBlicant Hon'ble Shri Dhirendra Nlishra & Hon'ble Shri R.N. Chandrakar. JJ FirstAppeal (M)No.70/2009 Smt. Yogita Bharti, aged 31 years, W/o Shri Upendra Nath Bharti, R/o Quarter No.2D, Sfreet 9, Sector-5, Bhilaj, P.0. Bhilai, Distt. Durg (CG) Versys xY Upendra Nath Bhart, aged about 38 years, S/o Shri Jaganudas Bharti, R/o Village-Patharra, P.S. Janjgriri, Distt.Durg (CG) Designation: Chargeman Mechanical Maintenance, Foundry Shop, BhilaiSteel Plant, P.0. Bhilai, Distt. Durg (CG) Apbeal under Section 19of the Familv Courts Act. 1994 Present: Shri Amrito Das, counsel for the appellant. Shri Praveen K. Dhurandhar, counssl forthe respondent. OralOrder (Passedon 22nd ofApril, 2010) Per Dhirendra Mishra. J:- Heard on I.A. No.01/2007, application for condonatiQn of delay in filing the appeal. (2). Not o^posed. (3) I.A. No.0172007 is allowed. Delay of 49 in filing the instant appeatis condoned. (4) With theconsent of teamed counsel forthe parties, the matter was finally heard. (5) The instant appeal under Section 19 ofthe Family Courts Act is ctirected against the decree of divoree dated 08.04.2007 passed in matrimonial suit No.27-A/2007, whereby learned Famity Court has annulled the mamage between the parti^s solemnized in the month of Aprir, 1994 by a decree of divorce through mutual consent. 'y (6) The. instant appeal has been filed against the decree of divorce through mutual cpnsent on the ground that while granting decree of dissolution of marriage, it has been held that the respondent shall deposit a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- in the State Bank account of minor daughter Renuka Bharti, whereas the settlement between the parties was for a surrT of Rs.2,00,000/- and to that exteht, the decree is erroneous and it is-not as a result of meeting of minds between the parties. Since'the appellantfe riafconversantwith thecomplexities of legal proceedings, her signature wa? obtained in the application for divorcethroughrnutual'ctansgnt.whichwasjointlyfiled bytheparties. (7) We have heard leamed counsel for the parties, we have examined the record ofthe Family Court inthe lightofthe arguments advanced before us and we find that in the application for dh/orce through mutual consent filed under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Actfilecl on 09.04.2007, it is clearly mentioned that a lump sum amount of Rs;2,00,000/- would be paid as maintenance to the appellantfwife and the first'instellment ofthe same i.e., Rs.1,00,000/- would be depositedon 16.05.2007 each in the account of the appellant Yogita and minor daughter Renuka. The aforesaid fact finds mentioned in the impugned decree of divorce. The decree has been passed after affording opportunities to the parties for reconciliation after recording their statementsonoath. f (8) In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the appellant/wife cannot be permitted to challenge the impugned decree on the grounds taken by her ih the memo 6f appeal as decree has been passed with.the mutual consent of the appellant and the respondenyhusband. (9) The appeal being devoid of substanpje deserves to be and is accordiiigly:dismissed. ^^ Priya Sd/- Dhirfiidra Mishra Judge Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar '\ 's:-.