.
AHMEDABAD: Gujarat HC ruled that terms and conditions agreed during the divorce are fully enforceable and executable by a family court, which earlier refused to direct a divorced woman to relinquish her rights in a joint property with her ex-husband. The couple involved in this case married in 2008 in Ahmedabad. They had a daughter in 2015 and got a divorce decree from the family court in 2019 by mutual consent. Their petition under Section 13B of Hindu Marriage Act included various terms and conditions for peaceful separation, including that daughter’s custody would be with the mother, and she would relinquish her ownership rights in a flat in Vastrapur and cooperate in getting the release deed registered with the sub-registrar. In 2021, when the husband requested his ex-wife to give up her property rights as agreed in the petition, the woman dragged her feet and asked him to transfer the right to their daughter instead. The man approached the family court and sought execution of the settlement to remove the wife’s name from the property records. In 2023, the family court declined relief, holding that the divorce decree did not specifically direct execution of a document. The family court said that if the petitioner was desirous of getting the release deed executed, he could do so by filing a separate suit seeking specific performance of the agreement according to the provisions of the Specific Relief Act. The man challenged family court’s order. A bench of Justice Sangeeta Vishen and Justice Nisha Thakore quashed the order and held that once settlement terms are incorporated into a consent divorce decree, they become part of the decree itself & must be enforced in execution. The HC questioned whether the wife was permitted to turn around and raise a grievance against the divorce deed and judgment after accepting the family court’s decree once. It further said, “Also, the family court, for executing the decree, cannot relegate the party to file a separate suit for the issues already agreed and judgment having passed in terms thereof. If such a course is allowed, it would go against the spirit of the Act of 1984 as well as the Act of 1955, as the central theme underlying both the legislations is to lessen the litigation, providing early resolution to the disputes between the parties.”
