The Andhra Pradesh High Court, comprising Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Nyapathy Vijay, dismissed a civil miscellaneous appeal challenging a divorce decree granted by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mangalagiri. The case, titled Damarla Jyothi v. Kodidasu Udaya Babu Udaya Siva Naga Babu (C.M.A No. 632/2024), was adjudicated under the Special Original Jurisdiction of the High Court.
Background of the Case
The appeal was filed by the wife, Damarla Jyothi, against the decree of divorce granted on July 3, 2024, in HMOP No. 36 of 2023 under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The respondent in the appeal was her husband, Kodidasu Udaya Babu Udaya Siva Naga Babu. The decree of divorce was passed following a mutual compromise between the parties during the trial.
During the proceedings before the trial court, the parties had arrived at a settlement at the instance of elders. A joint memo of compromise was submitted, and as per the agreement, the appellant received a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- via Demand Draft No. 004523 dated June 18, 2024. The appellant subsequently withdrew this amount on June 20, 2024. The trial court took the compromise on record and granted the decree of divorce.
Legal Issues Involved
The core legal issue in the appeal was whether an appeal could be entertained against a consent decree. The appellant sought to challenge the divorce decree despite the compromise memo being a part of the trial court’s judgment.
Observations and Decision of the Court
The Division Bench of the High Court, led by Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari, dismissed the appeal at the admission stage. The court noted that:
“A decree passed on a joint memo of compromise is, in essence, a consent decree. No appeal lies against a consent decree.”
The learned counsel for the appellant, Ramakrishna Akurathi, did not dispute the existence of the memo of compromise, the payment of Rs. 4,00,000/-, or its withdrawal by the appellant. The court, therefore, held that since the divorce decree was based on mutual consent, the appeal was not maintainable.
The High Court further ruled that:
“The present appeal is not maintainable as no appeal lies against a consent decree.”
With this ruling, the Andhra Pradesh High Court reaffirmed the settled legal principle that an appeal cannot be entertained against a decree based on mutual consent. The judgment underscores the importance of adhering to settled legal precedents regarding consent decrees in matrimonial matters.
The appeal was accordingly dismissed, and no order was passed as to costs. Furthermore, all pending miscellaneous petitions related to the case were also closed as a consequence of the main appeal’s dismissal.
