1 WP-6247-11.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6247 OF 2011 Terrence Simon Furtado ..Petitioner Vs Verena Stella Furtado ..Respondent -- Mr.R.V.Sankpal, for petitioner. Ms.Veena Gowda, for respondent. -- CORAM : R.G.KETKAR, J. DATE : 14 th OCTOBER, 2011 P.C.: Heard Mr.R.V.Sankpal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.Veena Gowda, learned counsel for the respondent. 2] Rule. The learned counsel for the respondent waives service. By consent of the parties, Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally. 3] By this petition, the petitioner husband has challenged order dated 6 th April, 2011 passed by the learned Family Court below 2 WP-6247-11.sxw exhibit 16 in Petition No.A-536 of 2008. By that order, the learned Judge of the Family Court ordered that the consent terms dated 18 th February, 2011 are treated as withdrawn. 4] The facts necessary for disposal of the petition are that the respondent wife filed petition for restitution of conjugal rights on 1 st March, 2008. The petitioner filed written statement as also counter claim and prayed for divorce. The parties filed consent terms for divorce by mutual consent on 18 th February, 2011. Under Clause 4 of the consent terms, the petitioner had agreed to pay Rs.Five lacs towards lumpsum/permanent alimony to wife for daughter. He was to make the payment on or before 18 th March, 2011 by demand draft. Subsequently, advocate for wife gave letter dated 16 th March, 2011 to the advocate for the petitioner husband setting out therein that she is not emotionally ready to take the divorce and she is withdrawing the consent terms. Subsequently, wife filed purshis on 22 nd March, 2011 for withdrawal of the consent terms. The petitioner filed reply on 22 nd March, 2011. By the impugned order, the learned Judge has directed that the consent terms are treated as withdrawn. 3 WP-6247-11.sxw 5] The learned counsel for the wife submits that the wife is entitled to withdraw the consent terms and in support of this preposition, she relied upon a decision in the case of Rajashree Prakash Rane Vs. Prakash Arjun Rane, Writ Petition No.4537 of 2003 decided on 6 th August, 2003. On the other hand, Mr.Sankpal relied upon the Division bench judgment of this Court in Family Court Appeal No.16 of 2010 decided on 16 th June, 2010. 6] I do not intend to go into merits of the case as the learned Judge has not recorded any reason in the impugned order. 7] Since the impugned order does not record any reason, the same deserves to be quashed ans set aside. The purshis filed by wife at exhibit 16 dated 22 nd March, 2011 is required to be heard afresh. 8] Hence, in my opinion, the following order will meet the ends of justice : (a) The impugned order dated 6 th April, 2011 passed by the 4 WP-6247-11.sxw learned Judge, Family Court below exhibit 16 in Petition No.A-536 of 2008 is quashed and set aside. (b) The purshis dated 22 nd March, 2011 exhibit 16 stands restored to the file of the Family Court. (c) The learned Judge, Family Court shall hear the parties and decide the said purshis in accordance with law within three months from today. (d) The learned counsel for the petitioner states that within four weeks from today, he will clear arrears at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month from February, 2011 till date. The statement is accepted. (e) Rule is made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs. All contentions of the parties are expressly kept open. [R.G.KETKAR, J.]