Filing Repetitive and Meritless Miscellaneous Applications After Finality of a Consent Divorce Decree Constitutes Abuse of Process

The Appellant (husband) and Respondent (wife) were divorced via a mutual consent decree under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act on 09.09.2022 in Original Suit No. 88 of 2022.

This decree was based on an amicable settlement regarding the division of properties and custody.

The Appellant later challenged this decree in First Appeal No. 208 of 2023 (dismissed on limitation) and subsequently before the Supreme Court (dismissed on 13.02.2026).

The Appellant then filed Misc. Civil Application (M.C.A.) No. 05 of 2025 before the Family Court, Jamshedpur, seeking directions for the Respondent to deposit ₹86.01 lakhs into a joint home loan account to relinquish her liability and for the enforcement of visitation rights.

The Family Court dismissed the application as non-maintainable on 17.05.2025, qualifying it as an abuse of the legal system.

1. Whether the Family Court’s order dismissing the miscellaneous application for non-compliance with a settled divorce decree was perverse or legally infirm.

2. Whether the court should exercise its parens patriae jurisdiction to grant custody/visitation rights despite the children's refusal to meet the father.

Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, regarding appeals against Family Court orders.

The definition of "perversity" established in Arulvelu and Anr. v. State [Represented by the Public Prosecutor] and Anr. (2009), which defines a perverse finding as one ignored by relevant material, supported by no evidence, or outrageously defying logic.

The doctrine of parens patriae regarding child welfare and the principles of Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, concerning the finality of mutual consent decrees.

The High Court found that the Appellant’s grievances regarding the joint loan and property division had already been settled by the mutual consent decree dated 09.09.2022, which attained finality after the dismissal of the Appellant's challenges by both the High Court and Supreme Court.

The court reasoned that since the bank’s requirement for the Appellant to deposit funds to remove the Respondent's name was a commercial condition he failed to meet, the Respondent could not be held in contempt.

Regarding custody, the Court exercised its parens patriae jurisdiction by summoning the children; however, they unequivocally refused to meet the Appellant due to his alleged cohabitation with another woman.

The Court concluded that the Family Court correctly identified the Appellant's repetitive filings as an abuse of process, as no issues remained "pending" after the finality of the divorce decree.

The court held that the mutual consent decree remains binding and the children’s refusal to meet the father precludes any further orders regarding visitation rights. The dismissal of M.C.A. No. 05 of 2025 as non-maintainable was upheld.