KAMLA DEVI Vs. RAJENDRA PAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the defendant-appellant arising out of the following facts:

(2.) THE plaintiff-respondent filed a peti tion under Sections 10 and 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of marriage and a decree for divorce. The parties were married according to Hindu rites on 1- 5-1962. The plaintiff contend ed that the marriage was solemnised at Ujhani District Budaun. He also contend ed that for some time the appellant lived with him and then went to her father's house. In spite of the plaintiff's attempt, she did not return. It was alleged that the defendant-appellant was a woman of loose morals and there have been threats on her behalf to kill the plaintiff. The petition was opposed by the appellant and inter alia it was pleaded that the marriage took place at village Kalva Bhoj District Shahjahanpur and the Budaun Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit.

(3.) THE defendant-appellant has filed this appeal. The main contention of the learned counsel for the defendant-appellant was that in a suit under Sec tion 10 or 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, no decree could be passed on the basis of the compromise or consent and there fore the decree passed by the lower appel late Court on the basis of the compromise was without jurisdiction and, as such, it should be set aside. The learned counsel for the respondent contended that under Section 96 (3), C.P.C., no appeal lies against a consent decree and therefore the second appeal was incompetent. His argu ment was that the Hindu Marriage Act provided a right of appeal under Section 28 but the procedure had to be followed as laid down in the Code of Civil Proce dure and as the decree was passed on a compromise and as it was a consent decree, therefore, this decree was not appealable. I have perused Section 96 (3), C.P.C. The relevant clause reads as below: