JUDGMENT : Pradipta Ray, J. - The present appellant, Sulochana Mohapatra, filed a petition u/s 7 of the Family Courts Act before the Family Court, Cuttack, being Civil Proceeding No. 403 of 1995 for setting aside a decree of divorce passed by the Family Court on November 18, 1995 u/s 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act in Civil Proceeding No. 348 of 1995. The present appellant in her petition has alleged that her consent was obtained by practising fraud, misrepresentation and under influence. 2. The case of the appellant-wife, inter alia, is : She was married to respondent-husband, Prabhat Kumar Mohapatra, on June 11, 1993. On February 27, 1995 a daughter was born out of the wedlock. Since the date of marriage there was constant demand for valuable articles as dowry. As the wife's family could not meet the demand, there was constant ill-treatment and abuse. As the ill-treatment became unbearable, the wife requested the husband to arrange any type of service for her so that she could earn herself and purchase a T.V. set out of her income. On October 13, 1995, the husband took her to Kendrapara and asked her to put signature on some typed papers stating that those were applications for a job. Relying on the husband's statement, she in good faith put her signature without going through the contents thereof. It subsequently transpired that the said papers were application for passing a decree of divorce on consent. The purported joint petition was filed in the Family Court, Cuttack, on November 18, 1995 and on the same date a decree for divorce was passed by the Family Court in total disregard of the mandatory requirement of Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act. 3. The husband contested the case by filing a written statement denying the material allegations made in the petition. The husband reiterated that the wife willingly and voluntarily agreed to file joint application for decree of divorce on consent; that she consciously put her signature on the said joint petition and that she herself was present in Family Court on November 18, 1995. The husband has denied that any compromise petition was filed on November 16, 1995. It appears that at the time of hearing of the said petition for setting aside the decree, the husband did not adduce any evidence. The wife examined herself and another witness. The husband has denied that any compromise petition was filed on November 16, 1995. It appears that at the time of hearing of the said petition for setting aside the decree, the husband did not adduce any evidence. The wife examined herself and another witness. In her evidence, the wife reiterated that she never willingly signed any paper knowing that the same was an application for divorce on mutual consent. The Family Court dismissed the wife's petition on the ground that the order dated November 18, 1995 expressly recorded that both the parties were present in court and the contents of the petition were read over to the parties, who admitted the contents to be correct. Being aggrieved, the wife has filed this appeal. The Family Court has totally failed to consider the provisions of Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, Under Sub-section (2) of Section 13-B, a decree of divorce by mutual consent cannot be granted earlier than six months after the date of presentation of the petition under Sub-section (1) or latter than 18 months after the said date of presentation. This Section is also clear that any of the parties may withdraw his/her consent during the said waiting period. On the face of it, the Family Court acted illegally in exercise of its jurisdiction in passing the decree of divorce on the same date when the application Section 13-8(1) was presented. The said decree is ex facie liable to be set aside. It appears to us that the Family Court in both the proceedings i.e. in Civil Proceeding No. 403 of 1995 and Civil Proceeding No. 348 of 1995 acted in a very casual manner without even caring to look to the provisions of the statute. Even otherwise, this petition for mutual consent appears to be very unusual and unnatural inasmuch as the same did not contain any arrangement for the maintenance of the wife and the child, in the facts and circumstances of the case it cannot be ruled out that the husband might have presented some other lady who impersonated as the appellant. It is very clear to the Court that the husband has acted in a fraudulent manner in securing the consent of the wife. It is very clear to the Court that the husband has acted in a fraudulent manner in securing the consent of the wife. Assuming that the wife initially gave her consent to a decree of divorce under the provisions of Hindu Marriage Act, any of the parties even after giving consent can withdraw consent within six months from the date of presentation of the petition. In the present case the decree was passed on November 18, 1995. The wife filed the petition for setting aside the said decree on December 22, 1995. Thus, when the wife claimed before the Family Court that she had no consent for a decree of divorce, the Family Court should have treated the same as withdrawal of her consent. For the reasons aforesaid, we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and order dated June 27, 2000 passed by the Family Court in Civil Proceeding No. 403 of 1995 and also the decree of divorce granted by the Family Court on November 18, 1985 in Civil Proceeding No. 348 of 1995. The appeal is thus allowed. M. Papanna, J. 4. I agree. Final Result : Allowed