The Gujarat High Court has clearly ruled that once spouses agree to divorce terms, courts must enforce them fully. Delays and refusals in executing consent decrees only multiply injustice, especially for husbands trapped in endless litigation.
Ahmedabad: The Gujarat High Court at Ahmedabad has delivered an important judgment clarifying that a mutual consent divorce settlement is legally binding and must be enforced exactly as agreed by both parties. The Court set aside the Family Court’s refusal to enforce a property transfer clause and held that execution courts cannot dilute or rewrite consent terms.
The matter arose from a dispute between a divorced couple where the wife had agreed, during mutual consent divorce proceedings, to relinquish her rights in a jointly owned flat in favour of the husband and to execute the necessary release deed before the Sub-Registrar. However, later she refused to cooperate, insisting on adding the daughter’s name to the property.
When the husband approached the Family Court for execution of the consent terms, the executing court refused relief, stating that the divorce decree did not specifically direct execution of a document and advised the husband to file a separate suit for specific performance.
Aggrieved by this refusal, the husband approached the Gujarat High Court.
The High Court strongly disagreed with the Family Court’s approach. It held that a mutual consent divorce decree is a consent decree under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure and must be executed as it stands. The executing court cannot go behind the decree or compel a party to initiate fresh litigation.
The High Court noted that the decree itself recorded that:
“Both the parties have waived their rights whatsoever from the properties of each other and shall not claim for the same in future”
and also recorded that the wife had “relinquished and surrendered her right in the joint property belonging to both the parties.”
Relying on Section 18 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, and Section 28A of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the Court held that decrees passed by the Family Court are to be executed in the same manner as civil court decrees. The Court further referred to Order XXI Rule 34 CPC, which allows execution of documents through court when a party refuses to comply.
On jurisdiction, the Court referred to the Family Courts Act which provides that:
“A suit or proceeding between the parties to a marriage with respect to the property of the parties or of either of them falls squarely within the jurisdiction of the Family Court.”
The Court further relied on the procedural law which mandates that execution disputes must be resolved in execution itself and not by separate litigation. The Code of Civil Procedure provides:
“All questions arising between the parties to the suit in which the decree was passed, or their representatives, and relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree, shall be determined by the Court executing the decree and not by a separate suit.”
The High Court emphasized that a consent decree passed under compromise is binding and cannot be reopened casually. It noted that the executing court cannot go behind the decree, cannot modify it, and cannot refuse execution merely because the relief was not separately worded as a standalone prayer when the consent terms clearly formed part of the decree itself.
Importantly, the Court highlighted that under procedural law, even if the subject matter of compromise goes beyond the original reliefs, the court can still pass a decree on compromise terms. The legal position is clear that once a lawful compromise is recorded, it becomes enforceable as part of the decree.
The High Court categorically rejected the view that a separate suit for specific performance was required and held that Section 47 CPC clearly mandates that all questions relating to execution must be decided by the executing court itself.
The Court observed that directing the husband to file a separate civil suit would amount to rewriting the decree and defeating the very purpose of mutual consent settlements, which are meant to bring finality and quietus to matrimonial disputes.
The High Court further noted that the Family Court had wrongly assumed that no direction existed regarding execution of documents. The consent terms and the decree clearly recorded the obligation of the wife to execute the release deed.
The High Court therefore allowed the appeal and held that the execution court must enforce the consent decree. It clarified that a party cannot escape contractual obligations recorded in a judicial decree merely by raising objections later.
In a connected order dated 13.01.2026, the High Court also modified an investment direction relating to a SIP amount, allowing the husband to invest Rs.15,00,000 over 30 months instead of 20 months, with consent of both sides.
This judgment strengthens the enforceability of mutual consent divorce settlements, especially property transfer clauses. It protects litigants from unnecessary harassment, repeated litigation, and tactical delays. It also sends a clear signal that courts will not allow parties to dishonour consent terms after taking advantage of a divorce settlement.
Explanatory table – laws & sections involved
| Law & Section | Purpose | How Applied In This Case |
| Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Section 13B | Divorce by mutual consent based on agreed terms | Once terms are accepted, they bind both parties |
| Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Section 27 | Power to deal with joint property | Does not restrict Family Court’s wider powers |
| Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Section 28A | Decrees enforceable like civil court decrees | Divorce settlements are fully executable |
| Family Courts Act, 1984 – Section 7 | Family Court jurisdiction over marital property | Property disputes between spouses fall within Family Court |
| Family Courts Act, 1984 – Section 18 | Execution of Family Court decrees | Family Court decree has same force as civil decree |
| CPC – Order XXI Rule 34 | Court can execute documents if party refuses | Release deed can be executed through court |
| CPC – Section 47 | Execution issues decided in execution, not new suit | Separate civil suit not required |
| CPC – Order XXIII Rule 3 | Compromise decree is binding | Consent terms become part of decree |
Case Details
- Case Title: Shivang Ashwinbhai Bhatt vs. Mahima Shivang Bhatt
- Case Number: R/First Appeal No. 17 of 2025
- Court: High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad
- Date of Judgment: 16 December 2025 (Modified by Order dated 13 January 2026)
- Neutral Citation: 2025:GUJHC:74570-DB
- Bench: Honourable Ms. Justice Sangeeta K. Vishen & Honourable Ms. Justice Nisha M. Thakore
- Counsels:
- For Appellant (Husband): Ms. Tanaya Shah for Evolve Legal
- For Respondent (Wife): Mr. M. B. Gohil
Key Takeaways
- Mutual consent divorce terms are legally binding contracts, not emotional promises, once signed, the other party cannot later back out or manipulate execution.
- Family Courts cannot force men into fresh civil lawsuits just to enforce what was already agreed in divorce settlements, this judgment blocks harassment through procedural delay.
- Property relinquishment agreed by a wife in consent terms must be honoured; courts cannot rewrite settlements under sympathy or pressure narratives.
- Delay tactics after settlement are a silent form of harassment against men and must be judicially shut down.
- This ruling strengthens legal certainty for men, protects property rights after divorce, and discourages misuse of matrimonial litigation as a recovery or bargaining tool.
This Could Change Your Case-Get FREE Legal Advice-Click Here!
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the Indian courts and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of “ShoneeKapoor.com” or its affiliates. This article is intended for informational and educational purposes only. The content provided is not legal advice, and viewers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Viewer discretion is advised.