1 2025:CGHC:48461-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR FA(MAT) No. 352 of 2023 Smt. Sunanda Shrivas W/o Anup Kumar Shrivas Aged About 34 Years Occupation Teacher, D.K. School, Yadunandan Nagar, Tifra, Police Station Sirgitti, Tahsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.), R/o Ground Floor C/84, Yadunandan Nagar, Tifra, Police Station Sirgitti, Tahsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Appellant/defendant versus Anup Kumar Shrivas S/o Jeevanlal Shrivas Occupation Beema Agent, R/o First Floor C/84, Yadunandan Nagar, Tifra, Police Station Sirgitti, Tahsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent/plaintiff For Appellant : Mr. GVK Rao, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Achyut Tiwari, Advocate. Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad, JJ Order on Board (22nd September, 2025) Per Rajani Dubey, J Heard on admission. 2 02. As per mediation report dated 22.8.2025, mediation between the parties failed. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally. 03. The appellant/defendant in this appeal calls in question the judgment and decree dated 16.12.2022 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur in Civil Suit No.57A/2019 whereby application u/s 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act filed by the parties for divorce on mutual consent has been allowed. 04. Facts, in brief, necessary for adjudication of this appeal, are that marriage between the parties was solemnized on 20.2.2008 as per Hindu rites and rituals at Bilaspur and from their wedlock on 26.4.2009 a son was born. However, due to some ideological differences between the parties they started living separately since 28.3.2010 and all the efforts made for reconciliation between them failed. Hence during pendency of the suit they jointly filed an application u/s 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act for grant of divorce on mutual consent. Learned Family Court considering the facts and circumstances of the case, allowed the said application by the impugned judgment and decree and thereby dissolved their marriage on mutual consent. 05. Learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff submits that this appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act is not maintainable against the judgment passed by the Family Court u/s 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act and on this count, this appeal is liable to be dismissed at the admission stage itself. 3 06. Learned counsel for the appellant, on the other hand, submits that the impugned judgment and decree passed by learned Family Court are bad in law. The contents of the compromise deed were not properly explained to the appellant and no sufficient time was provided to read and understand the same, therefore, the compromise deed filed before the Family Court suffered from illegality. The respondent is working as Insurance Agent whereas the appellant has no sufficient means of livelihood and she is also suffering from illness. He submits that the amount of permanent alimony is also shockingly on the lower side. Therefore, the impugned judgment and decree are liable to be set aside. 07. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 08. It is clear from the record of learned Family Court that on 11.1.2019 the respondent/husband filed an application u/s 13(1)(iA)(iB) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the Family Court. The appellant/wife appeared before the Family Court on summons and both of them were sent for mediation on 9.5.2019. During pendency of the suit, on 16.12.2022 both the parties jointly filed an application u/s 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act with their affidavits. They also filed a joint application for waiving off the cooling period. Learned Family Court after recording their evidence, waived off the cooling period and based on their mutual consent, granted decree of divorce by the impugned judgment and decree. 09. This Court in the matter of Abhinav Shrivastava Vs. Smt. Akasnsha Shrivastava in FA(MAT) No.209/2023 observed in paras 3 & 4 of its order dated 4.8.2023 as under: 4 "3. This appeal has been filed under Section 19(2) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (for short 'the Act 1984'). Sub-section(2) of Section 19 of the Act 1984 bars such an appeal when a decree is passed with the consent of the parties, which reads as under: "19. (2) No appeal shall lie from a decree or order passed by the Family Court with the consent of the parties [or from an order passed under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974); Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall apply to any appeal pending before a High Court or any order passed under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) before the commencement of the Family Courts (Amendment) Act, 1991]". 4. In view of such fact, the appeal is not maintainable and the same is dismissed at the admission stage itself.” 10. Admittedly, in the present case, the impugned judgment and decree have been passed on an application moved by the parties u/s 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act on the basis of their mutual consent. Therefore, keeping in view the provisions of Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, the instant appeal is not at all maintainable and accordingly, it is dismissed in limine. Sd/ Sd/ (Rajani Dubey) (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Judge Khan MOHD AKHTAR KHAN Digitally signed by MOHD AKHTAR KHAN Date: 2025.09.24 11:20:45 +0530