Recall of consent decree barred where fraud was alleged against a party, not the Court, and voluntary consent was found.

A recall or review petition against a consent decree dissolving marriage by mutual consent is not maintainable where the complaint is that consent was obtained by fraud, coercion or undue influence on a party rather than fraud on the Court itself. In such circumstances, the proper remedy is a separate suit to challenge the decree. The Court found no material showing that the husband practised fraud on the Court or misled it into passing the decree, and the allegation of coercion was not proved. The consent was therefore treated as voluntary, and the challenge to the decree failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the review or recall petition was maintainable against the consent decree dissolving the marriage by mutual consent, and whether the decree was liable to be set aside on the ground of fraud, coercion or undue influence.

Analysis: The Court held that the inherent power under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure is wide, but it cannot be used where the complaint is that consent was obtained by fraud practised on the other party rather than on the Court. In such a case, the proper remedy is a separate suit to challenge the decree. Recall or review is maintainable only where fraud is practised upon the Court itself, or where the Court was misled into passing the order. On the facts, the wife had opportunities to disclose any alleged coercion, yet her conduct and surrounding circumstances did not establish that the husband had played fraud on the Court. The evidence indicated that the allegation of coercion was not proved and the consent for mutual divorce was found to have been given voluntarily.

Conclusion: The review or recall petition was not maintainable on the facts, and the challenge to the consent decree failed; the dismissal of the application was upheld.

---