Social Icons

Tuesday, June 30, 2015

ALLEGATION THAT THE APPELLANT HUSBAND PLAYED FRAUD ON THE FAMILY COURT AND OBTAINED DECREE OF DISSOLUTION OF MARRIAGE

ALLEGATION THAT THE APPELLANT HUSBAND PLAYED FRAUD ON THE FAMILY COURT AND OBTAINED DECREE OF DISSOLUTION OF MARRIAGE

The appellant husband filed a petition under Section 13(1) (i-a) and (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for dissolution of marriage. The notice issued to 1st respondent-wife was retuned as refused, the Family Court held service of notice on the wife as sufficient. The 1st respondent-wife was placed ex parte and the case was adjourned. The first respondent-wife’s counsel filed vakalathnama and an application under Order IX, Rule 7 of C.P.C, the said application was allowed, the ex parte order was set aside. The 1st respondent-wife was absent and evidence was closed. Appellant-husband got himself examined as P.W-1 and got marked Exs. P1 to P4. Cross-examination of P.W-1 was taken as nil, the family Court allowed the petition and dissolved the marriage of the parties.

The 1st respondent-wife challenged the judgement of the dissolution of marriage before the High Court on the grounds of fraud.

The main allegation made by the 1st respondent-wife is that the husband played fraud on the Family Court and obtained the decree of dissolution of marriage. In support of such submission, she submitted that she had not engaged any Counsel in the case and that blank Vakalathnama was taken at the time of settlement for their mutual divorce and that she never appeared before the Family Court.


No question as to whether the appellant-husband played fraud on the Family Court and obtained the decree of dissolution of marriage or whether the appellant-husband committed any offence punishable under the provisions of Indian Penal Code was framed by the High Court. The High Court failed to notice that this is a case in which there is a disputed question of fact which cannot be decided without faming a proper issue and in absence of evidence on record. Consequently the Hon’ble Supreme Court had set aside the impugned judgement passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka and thereby the appellant-husband appeal was allowed. [Sunil Vs. Sakshi@Shweta].

Prepared by: S. Hemanth
Advocate at Hemanth & Associates