IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI FRIDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY l■A■No■2 of 2025 IN CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.632 of 2024 Between: Damarla Jyothi, W/o. Kodidasu Udaya Babu, Age 30 R/o.D.No.16-22. Damarlavari Street, Ipurupalem, Chirala Mandal Bapatia District. years. ...Petitioner/Appellant AND Kodidasu Udaya Babu @ Udaya Siva Naga Babu, S/o. late Sambasiva Rao, Age 38 years, R/o. D.No.7-369, Behind Sri Gopala Krishna Theater, Near Ramalayam, Mangalagiri, Tadikonda Mandal, Guntur District. ...Respondent/ Respondent Petition under Section 114 R/w Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to review the order dated 1.1G.2024 i CMA.No.632 of 2024. in Counsel for the Appellant : Sri N.Bharath Simha Reddy Counsel for the Respondent : None Appeared The Court made the following: ORDER Heard Sri N.Bharath Simha Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. I.A.No.2 of 2025 has been filed by the appellant-wife for judgment dated 01.10.2024 in C.M.A.No.632 of 2024 by which the appeal dismissed as not maintainable. 3. On 01.10.2024, this appeal was dismissed on the ground that, since the appellant consented for grant of divorce, parties also compromised and wife had also withdrawn the settled amount, the appeal observing that no appeal lies against the consent decree. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the divorce decree could not be granted on compromise or consent. In such matters the consent i: immaterial. He placed reliance in Sanjeeta Das v. Tapan Kumar Mohanty {2010 AIR sew 5683}. So, it is submitted that the judgment dated 01.10.2024 suffers from error apparent and deserves to be reviewed. 5. We have considered the submissions advanced material on record. 6. In Sanjeeta Das (supra) the Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down that the Hindu Marriage can be dissolved only clearly enumerated under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act (in Act’). The law does not permit the purchase of a decree of divorce for consideration, with or without the consent of the other side contesting parties proceed under Section 13B of the Act. review of our was the was not maintainable. IS and perused the any of the grounds plainly and short ‘the on unless the si i Para Nos.5 to 7 of Sanjeeta Das (supra) are as follows: “5. These two orders passed by the High Court, by which it purported to grant a decree of divorce for dissolution of the respondent's marriage with the appellant are now before us in appeal and plainly speaking we are unable to put any meaning to the order of the High Court. The marriage between the respondent and the appellant was admittedly solemnized in accordance with the Hindu religious rites. A Hindu marriage can be dissolved only on any of the grounds plainly and clearly enumerated under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The law does not permit the purchase of a decree of divorce for consideration, with or without the consent of the other side. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent urged us not to interfere in submitting that the respondent and the appellant had lived together barely for four months. He stated that the marriage had taken place April 29, 1994 and from August 24, 1994 they are living separately. He also tried to argue that the order of the High Court was passed with the consent of the parties and for that reason also this Court should not interfere in the matter. We are not prepared to accept the submission for a moment. First, there is nothing to indicate that the order was passed with the consent of the appellant. All that is said in the order is as under: "On consideration of such affidavit and the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, we dispose both these appeals with the following directions" 7. the matter on (Emphasis added) 7. The affidavit referred to in the order is the one filed by the respondent and consideration of submission of counsel for the parties does not indicate that the appellant had given her consent for dissolution of her marriage with the respondent on payment of Rs.10,00,000.00 (rupees ten lakhs only). Secondly, and more importantly, the consent of the parties is of no relevance in the matter. No court can assume jurisdiction to dissolve a Hindu marriage the basis of the consent of the parties de hors the grounds simply on enumerated under Section 13 of the Act, unless of course the consenting parties proceed under Section 13B of the Act.” The appeal was dismissed, considering only that, the wife consented for divorce after the compromise and accepting and withdrawing the amount, so the appeal was not maintainable. Any other aspect was not considered. The grant of divorce was on merits. So appeal was maintainable. 8. I.A.No.2 of 2025 is allowed. We recall the order dated 01.10.2024. CMA.No.632 of 2024 is restored to original number. 9. Sd/- S.V.S.R.MURTHY JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// S^ION OFFICER To 1. The Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mangalagiri, Guntur District. 2. One CC to Sri N.Bharath Simha Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Three CD Copies TK sre HIGH COURT DATED:10/01/2025 ORDER I.A.No.2 of 2025 in CMA.No.632 of 2024 S 13 MAS M25 Uurrwti Mciion ^ ALLOWING THE APPLICATION