In a significant ruling that clarifies the legal weight of divorce settlements, the Gujarat High Court has held that terms and conditions agreed upon during a mutual consent divorce are fully enforceable and executable by a family court. The judgment came in response to a case where a family court had earlier refused to direct a divorced woman to relinquish her rights in a joint property as per their agreement.
The Case Background: A 2019 Divorce and a 2021 Dispute
The couple at the center of this legal battle married in Ahmedabad in 2008. They were blessed with a daughter in 2015. Seeking an amicable separation, they obtained a divorce decree by mutual consent from the family court in 2019 under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act.
Their joint petition included several agreed terms for a peaceful separation. Key among them were:
- Custody of their daughter would remain with the mother.
- The wife would relinquish her ownership rights in a jointly owned flat located in Vastrapur, Ahmedabad.
- She would cooperate in getting the necessary release deed registered with the sub-registrar.
However, in 2021, when the ex-husband requested his former wife to formally give up her property rights as promised, she hesitated. Instead of complying, she proposed that the property rights be transferred to their daughter. This led the man to approach the family court seeking execution of the settlement to remove his ex-wife's name from the property records.
Family Court's Refusal and the High Court's Intervention
In 2023, the family court declined to grant relief. It held that the divorce decree did not contain a specific direction for the execution of a document. The court suggested that the petitioner could file a separate lawsuit seeking specific performance of the agreement under the Specific Relief Act.
Challenging this order, the man moved the Gujarat High Court. A division bench comprising Justice Sangeeta Vishen and Justice Nisha Thakore heard the case and quashed the family court's order. The HC delivered a clear and firm verdict.
A Landmark Legal Principle Established
The High Court bench established a crucial legal principle. It ruled that once the terms of a settlement are incorporated into a consent divorce decree, they become an integral part of the decree itself. Consequently, these terms must be enforced through execution proceedings and cannot be sidestepped.
The court questioned whether the ex-wife could legally backtrack on the agreement after having accepted the family court's decree. The bench strongly emphasized that the family court, tasked with executing the decree, cannot redirect a party to file a separate suit for issues already agreed upon and adjudicated.
The judgment stated, "If such a course is allowed, it would go against the spirit of the Act of 1984 as well as the Act of 1955, as the central theme underlying both the legislations is to lessen the litigation, providing early resolution to the disputes between the parties."
Implications and Conclusion
This ruling by the Gujarat High Court reinforces the sanctity of mutual consent agreements in divorce proceedings. It sends a strong message that terms willingly agreed upon by both parties and sanctified by a court decree are binding and enforceable. The judgment aims to prevent prolonged litigation and uphold the objective of family law: to provide swift and definitive resolution to marital disputes.
By mandating that family courts execute such settlement terms, the HC has streamlined the legal process, offering clarity and closure to individuals navigating the challenging path of divorce.
