JUDGMENT : Vasanti A. Naik, J. The first appeal is admitted and heard finally at the stage of admission with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this first appeal, the appellant challenges the judgment of the Family Court, Nagpur dated 25/01/2017 dissolving the marriage solemnised between the appellant and the respondent by a decree of divorce under section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act. 3. The facts giving rise to the family court appeal are stated thus:- The appellant-wife and the respondent-husband were married as per the Hindu rites and customs on 15/11/2007. The appellant-wife had filed a petition for grant of maintenance. The wife had also filed a separate petition for restitution of conjugal rights. The prayer in the said petition was granted. The respondent-husband had filed the petition for divorce. In the said petition, the parties were referred to the Mediator, who is an advocate whose name finds place in the list of mediators, for considering whether an amicable settlement between the parties could be possible. The parties thought of entering into a settlement and the consent terms were signed by the appellant and the respondent before the Mediator. As per the said terms, a sum of Rs. 4,21,000/- was deposited by the husband in the Family Court for payment of the same to the wife towards full and final settlement. The stridhan articles of the wife were also tendered in the court. Before the Family Court could pass a decree of divorce by consent under the provisions of section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, the wife filed an application for withdrawal from the consent terms. The wife stated that she was not desirous of seeking a decree of divorce by consent under section 13B of the of the Hindu Marriage Act. The Family Court rejected the application of the appellant-wife and dissolved the marriage solemnised between the parties by a decree of divorce under section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act by the judgment dated 25/01/2017. 4. Shri Fulzele, the learned counsel for the appellant-wife, submitted that the Family Court should have permitted the wife to withdraw her consent for a decree of divorce under section 13B of the Act. It is stated that though the husband had deposited a sum of Rs. 4. Shri Fulzele, the learned counsel for the appellant-wife, submitted that the Family Court should have permitted the wife to withdraw her consent for a decree of divorce under section 13B of the Act. It is stated that though the husband had deposited a sum of Rs. 4,21,000/- in the trial court towards the maintenance and the arrears of maintenance and had also tendered the stridhan articles in the court, the appellant has not withdrawn a single pai from the said amount and had also not secured any of the stridhan articles and they are still lying in the Family Court. It is stated by relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (1991) 2 SCC 25 (Sureshta Devi v. Om Prakash) and (2011) 5 SCC 234 (Hitesh Bhatnagar v. Deepa Bhatnagar) that it would be permissible for a party to withdraw the consent at any time before the decree of divorce is passed. It is stated that the case of the appellant would have been different if the appellant had withdrawn the amount deposited by the respondent or would have collected the stridhan articles that are deposited in the Family Court. It is stated that the Family Court has wrongly rejected the application of the appellant for withdrawal from her consent by observing that the respondent had complied with the obligations imposed upon him by the consent terms and that the marriage between the parties is irretrievably broken down. 5. On the other hand, it is submitted on behalf of the respondent that the Family Court was justified in rejecting the application of the appellant and passing a decree of divorce under section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act. It is stated that the marriage between the appellant and the respondent was irretrievably broken down and that aspect of the matter is rightly considered by the Family Court while passing the judgment and decree. It is stated that the respondent had deposited a sum of Rs. 4,21,000/- in the Family Court and had also brought all the stridhan articles to the Family Court for depositing the same. It is stated that since the respondent had acted upon the consent terms, the Family Court was justified in refusing to permit the appellant from withdrawing from the consent terms. 4,21,000/- in the Family Court and had also brought all the stridhan articles to the Family Court for depositing the same. It is stated that since the respondent had acted upon the consent terms, the Family Court was justified in refusing to permit the appellant from withdrawing from the consent terms. The learned counsel relied on an unreported judgment of this court in Family Court Appeal No. 61 of 2010 dated 06/05/2011 and the judgment dated 26/08/2008 in Writ Petition No. 3556 of 2008 to substantiate his submission. 6. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a perusal of the record and proceedings, it appears that the following points arise for determination in this family court appeal. (I) Whether the appellant was entitled to withdraw the consent for a decree of divorce as per the consent terms recorded before the Mediator, in the circumstances of the case? (II) What order? On a perusal of the record and proceedings and on hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it appears that the Family Court was not justified in rejecting the application filed by the appellant-wife for resiling from the terms that were recorded before the Mediator. The parties were referred to the Mediator as per the order of the Family Court. Before the Mediator, the parties had agreed that the marriage solemnised between the parties could be dissolved by a decree of divorce by consent under section 13B of the Act. However, no such application under section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act was filed by the parties even after signing the consent terms before the Mediator. The appellant changed her mind and did not wish that the marriage between her and the respondent should be dissolved. She therefore applied for permission to withdraw from the consent terms recorded before the Mediator. It however appears that on the same day, the learned Judge, Family Court, Nagpur permitted the respondent-husband to convert the petition under section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Act to a petition under section 13B of the Act and passed the orders dissolving the marriage solemnised between the parties by a decree of divorce by consent. The Family Court ought to have permitted the appellant to withdraw from the consent terms that were signed before the Mediator. The Family Court ought to have permitted the appellant to withdraw from the consent terms that were signed before the Mediator. The consent terms signed before a Mediator would not have a binding force unless and until the court passes a formal judgment and decree on the basis of the same. The case would have had a different colour if the appellant would have withdrawn the sum of Rs. 4,21,000/- deposited by the respondent in the Family Court in terms of the consent terms or at least some amount out of the said amount. However, the appellant has not withdrawn a single pai from the amount of Rs. 4,21,000/- deposited by the respondent before the Family Court. Though the respondent has tendered the stridhan articles that are liable to be returned to the appellant in the Family Court, the appellant has not taken the possession of any stridhan article out of the same. If that be the case, it cannot be said that the appellant has taken advantage of the consent terms and has then resiled from the same. Merely because the respondent has deposited the amount of Rs. 4,21,000/- in the court, it cannot be said that he is put to grave and irreparable loss. He is free to withdraw the said amount as the appellant is not desirous of seeking the dissolution of the marriage by a decree of divorce by consent. The unreported judgment dated 06/05/2011 in Family Court Appeal No. 61 of 2010 and the judgment dated 26/08/2008 in Writ Petition No. 3556 of 2008 cannot be made applicable to the facts of this case. In those cases, one of the parties had acted upon the consent terms and was trying to take unfair advantage by resiling from the said terms. Moreover, in the case in Family Court Appeal No. 61 of 2010 the court was considering the provisions of the Family Courts (Maharashtra) Rules, 1987 which speak of a settlement before the Counsellor. In the instant case, the settlement was not sought to be effected before the Counsellor but it was sought to be effected before the Mediator. Moreover, in the case in Family Court Appeal No. 61 of 2010 the court was considering the provisions of the Family Courts (Maharashtra) Rules, 1987 which speak of a settlement before the Counsellor. In the instant case, the settlement was not sought to be effected before the Counsellor but it was sought to be effected before the Mediator. The Family Court was not justified in refusing permission to the appellant to withdraw from the consent terms by observing that the marriage solemnised between the appellant and the respondent was irretrievably broken down as that cannot be a ground for dissolving the marriage under section 13B of the Act when one of the parties is not agreeable for getting the marriage dissolved by consent. Before the appellant had filed the application for withdrawal of consent, the parties had not submitted the petition under section 13B of the Act. The judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (1991) 2 SCC 25 and (2011) 5 SCC 234 would squarely apply to the case in hand. In the circumstances of the case, the judgment of the Family Court is liable to be set aside and the matter is liable to be remanded to the Family Court, Nagpur for deciding the petition filed by the respondent on merits, in accordance with law. 7. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the family court appeal is allowed. The judgment of the Family Court is hereby set aside. The Family Court, Nagpur is directed to decide the petition filed by the respondent as early as possible in accordance with law. There would be no order as to costs.