Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:105961-DB Court No. - 39 Case :- FIRST APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 643 of 2025 Appellant :- Amit Singh Respondent :- Smt. Sanjana Counsel for Appellant :- Hriday Raj Tripathi Hon'ble Arindam Sinha,J. Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava,J. Mr. Hriday Raj Tripathi, learned advocate appears on behalf of applicant-appellant and submits, his client and respondent had jointly petitioned for divorce by mutual consent. His client's obligation under the agreement, to pay permanent alimony, was discharged. On second motion day, respondent did not appear and by impugned judgment dated 22nd April, 2025, the Family Court dismissed the petition. His client is aggrieved. The appeal was preferred on reported delay of four days. Application has been made for condonation. The Supreme Court in Sureshta Devi Vs. Om Prakash reported in (1991) 2 SCC 25 had declared the law regarding divorce by mutual consent and held, such consent must subsist for purpose of dissolution of marriage under section 13-B in Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Paragraph 14 (Lawsuit print) is reproduced below. "Sub-section (2) requires the Court to hear the parties which means both the parties. If one of the parties at that stage says that "I have withdrawn my consent", or "I am not a willing party to the divorce", the Court cannot pass a decree of divorce by mutual consent. If the Court is held to have the power to make a decree solely based on the initial petition, it negates the whole idea of mutualitly and consent for divorce. Mutual consent to the divorce is a sine qua non for passing a decree for divorce under Section 13-B. Mutual consent should continue till the divorce decree is passed. It is a positive requirement for the court to pass a decree of divorce. "The consent must continue to decree nisi and must be valid subsisting consent when the case is heard". [See (i) Halsbury Laws of England, Fourth Edition Vol. 13 para 645; (ii) Rayden on Divorce, 12th Ed. Vol. 1 p. 291 and (iii) Beales v. Beales, (1972) 2 All ER 667 at p.674:(1972) 2 WLR 972." In view of aforesaid, the appeal is not maintainable. Applicant-appellant must find his remedy, including on conduct displayed by respondent. The appeal is dismissed. Order Date :- 7.7.2025-RKK/- (Arindam Sinha, J) (Dr Y K Srivastava, J) Digitally signed by :- RAJ KUMAR KANNAUJIA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad