Citation : 2025 Local Law (CG) 860 : 2025:CGHC:55012-DB
The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that an appeal against a divorce decree granted by a Family Court with the parties’ consent is not maintainable, and dismissed a wife’s challenge while leaving her free to approach the Family Court for enforcement of specific directions. The Division Bench of Justices Sanjay K. Agrawal and Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal heard the appeal brought by Jyoti Varkade against her former husband, Govind Shah, and recorded its judgment on November 12, 2025.
The dispute arose after a Family Court in Bilaspur dissolved the marriage of the parties by mutual consent on September 22, 2023, under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The appellant later filed this appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 seeking to challenge the Family Court’s decree and to press for compliance with a specific part of the Family Court’s order that directed the respondent to allow the appellant to meet and call their son by video conferencing. Counsel for the parties were Mr. Abdul Moin Khan for the appellant and Mr. Gaurav Singhal for the respondent.
The High Court first allowed an application to condone delay in filing the appeal, but its attention then turned to maintainability. Relying on Section 19(2) of the Family Courts Act, which bars appeals from decrees or orders passed by Family Courts with the consent of the parties, the Bench found no factual allegation of fraud that could vitiate consent. Because the decree was the result of mutual consent, the Court concluded the appeal could not be entertained. The Court noted the appellant’s grievance about non-compliance with paragraph 2 of the Family Court judgment but observed that contesting non-compliance did not convert a consent decree into a decreee that is appealable in the High Court.
While dismissing the appeal as not maintainable, the High Court preserved practical relief: the appellant was granted liberty to approach the Family Court for enforcement or compliance of the specific direction concerning video conferencing with the child. The Bench made no order as to costs. In short, the decision reinforces the settled principle that consent decrees of Family Courts ordinarily foreclose appellate remedies under Section 19(2), while leaving enforcement and compliance questions to the Family Court that made the order.
This ruling will be of interest to family law practitioners and litigants because it underscores the narrow scope to challenge mutual consent divorces before the High Court and clarifies the appropriate procedural route when one party alleges non-compliance with terms of a consent decree.
Case Details : FA(MAT) No. 280 of 2024, Jyoti Varkade vs Govind Shah.
Counsels : For Appellant : Mr. Abdul Moin Khan, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Gaurav Singhal, Advocate.