Wife cannot wriggle out of consent terms, must keep her end of deal: HC

MUMBAI: Consent terms create mutual obligation on the parties involved, said the Bombay high court and held that it was "not permissible" for a wife to "wriggle out of consent terms after accepting benefits of it" in divorce proceedings.
Disposing a petition filed last year by the husband, the single-judge high court bench of Justice Amit Borkar on Monday directed the wife to keep her end of the deal under clauses of the consent terms for a divorce within two months and not withdraw from it.
The husband's petition before the HC said the wife was refusing to comply with her part of the consent terms.
The husband had come before the HC to challenge an August 17, 2022, order passed by the trial court rejecting his plea for directions to his estranged wife to honour a settlement dated September 30, 2020.
The HC, after hearing the husband's lawyer, Amol Jagtap, observed that he had performed his part of the consent terms by paying Rs 12.5 lakh to her as a one-time settlement towards maintenance and also transferring to her a residential flat.
If she fails to perform her part of the consent terms-to withdraw domestic violence and cruelty cases and give child access-in two months, Justice Borkar directed that the husband's plea filed in 2021 for return of the flat and the entire amount will stand allowed, meaning she would have to return them to him.
The couple married in 2007. They have a minor child. In 2018, the husband filed for divorce in a Pune court alleging cruelty by her. The divorce proceedings were referred to a mediator.
On September 30, 2020, the warring couple agreed to settle the matter amicably and filed consent terms, creating obligations on both.
Advocate Anshuman Asare for the wife argued that the husband failed to comply with a clause obliging him to transfer a public provident fund (PPF) account in her name and also a maintenance clause. The wife's case was that once a divorce decree is passed, an obligation may remain unfulfilled by him and hence she did not comply with three terms.
The HC scrutinised the terms and was satisfied that all were enforceable in law. The HC said the PPF clearly needs to be transferred after the divorce decree is passed. The HC said her fear of non-compliance of sharing costs for higher education is "misconceived as it always open" to the wife to enforce the clause when the need arises.
The HC, satisfied that the husband had otherwise complied, said, "The respondent (wife) had accepted the benefit arising out of consent terms. It is, therefore, not permissible for the respondent to wriggle out of consent terms of accepting benefits of it.''