Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:138089 Court No. - 35 Case :- FIRST APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 486 of 2025 Appellant :- Smt. Anchal Respondent :- Smt. Sarita And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Hemant Kumar Hon'ble Sandeep Jain,J. 1. Case taken up in the revised call. None is present for the appellant. 2. The instant appeal has been filed under Section 96 C.P.C. by the appellant challenging the compromise decree dated 19.02.2025 passed in Original Suit No. 772 of 2024 (Smt. Sarika Vs. Kushvendra Kumar) by the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Meerut on the ground that it is a collusive decree which has been passed in between her husband- Kushvendra Kumar and husband's first wife- Smt. Sarika, in which, she was not impleaded as a party. The appellant has submitted in the memo of appeal that the compromise decree infringes her rights and, as such, without impleading her in the original suit, no such compromise decree could have been passed by the court below. It has been further submitted in the memo that the consent decree is collusive and fraudulent. It is further mentioned in the memo of appeal that she had earlier filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. for being impleaded as a necessary party in the above suit, but that application was rejected by the lower court on 16.12.2024 and she has challenged that order by filing Civil Revision No. 8 of 2024, before this Court. 3. It is apparent that the appellant being second wife of Kushvendra Kumar, is asserting her rights on the basis of that marital relationship. It is also true that a compromise was arrived between her husband Kushvendra Kumar and Smt. Sarika (first wife of her husband) which is under challenge in this appeal. The Apex Court in the case of Triloki Nath Singh Vs. Anirudh Singh (Dead) through legal representatives and others reported in (2020) 6 SCC 629 has held that a compromise decree can only be challenged before the court, which passed the decree. It is specifically held that even stranger to the decree, can challenge that decree before that court, which passed the consent decree. 4. It is apparent that the appellant has not filed any application before the court below, for recalling the consent decree and has straightaway filed the instant appeal, which is not legally maintainable. 5. In view of the above, this instant first appeal is dismissed as being not maintainable. 6. However, the appellant can pursue her remedy by filing recall application before the court below, for setting aside the consent decree, in accordance with law. Order Date :- 13.8.2025 A. V. Singh Digitally signed by :- AJAY VIKRAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad