A mutual consent divorce is meant to be final and clean, so the grounds to challenge one are deliberately narrow — but they do exist, and it is important you understand them precisely. A decree under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act (or Section 28 of the Special Marriage Act) rests on the free and genuine consent of both parties, so the challenge almost always turns on attacking that consent.

A consent decree can be assailed where the consent was vitiated — that is, obtained by fraud, force, coercion, undue influence, or material misrepresentation. Section 23 of the Act requires the court to be satisfied that consent was not so obtained, and if you can show, for example, that you were pressured into signing or misled about the terms or assets, that is the doorway to challenge. There is a related and vital point on timing: if a party genuinely withdraws consent before the decree is actually passed — during the gap between the first and second motions — the court cannot grant the mutual consent decree at all, as the Supreme Court confirmed in Hitesh Bhatnagar v. Deepa Bhatnagar.

Once the decree has been passed, however, undoing it is genuinely difficult; you must prove that your consent was vitiated, and ordinary "change of mind" or later regret is not enough. Because limitation runs against you, you must act quickly, and you should have the facts assessed candidly before spending years on a weak challenge. The divorce lawyers empanelled for Agra can evaluate honestly whether your consent was truly vitiated or whether the decree is likely to hold.

My straight advice is to be realistic. Mutual consent decrees are designed to be durable, and courts protect that finality. Challenge one only where there is real evidence of fraud or coercion — and if there is, move without delay.