the basing its judgment on Saroj rani v. Sudershan Kumar ,the court observed that a consent decree by itself cannot be considered as collusive in matrimonial affairs.
Failure to plead absence of collusion, however, is not fatal to a petition. Thus, where a wife sought dissolution of her marriage where her ‘husband’ already had a spouse living, without pleading absence of collusion, it was held that she would be entitled to relief if there is otherwise enough proof to satisfy the conscience of the court that there was no collusion.
In Janardhan Rao v. M. Aruna Kumari, a wife filed a petition for judicial separation which was resisted by the husband. However, in order to put an to the tension, he indicated in his written statement that he had no objection to…show more content… VI. DELAY
Delay in reporting a suit for matrimonial relief is one more bar in matrimonial lawsuit. It is, though, not just a delay ,but only unnecessary and improper delay ,which would work as a bar .the purpose is that the offended spouse should not be permitted to hold his weapon ,i.e., the ground which allows him/her to relief ,over the head of the other party for an indefinite or unreasonable period.
Improper and unnecessary delay is a bar to relief in all matrimonial causes under the Hindu marriage act , the special marriage act , and the Parsi marriage and divorce act .in the Indian divorce act unreasonable delay is a bar only available for divorce.
The wordings of 34(e) of the special marriage act 1954 and Section 23(d) of Hindu marriage act, 1955, are same