SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2019 Supreme(SC) 559

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Abhay Manohar Sapre, Dinesh Maheshwari, JJ.
Karuna Kansal – Appellant(s)
VERSUS
Hemant Kansal & Anr. – Respondent(s)
Civil Appeal Nos. 4847-4848 of 2019 (Arising Out of SLP(C) Nos. 7529-7530 of 2015)
Decided on : 09-05-2019

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. A.K. Chitale, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Sumit Kumar Sharma, Advocate, Mr. Neeraj Srivastava, Advocate, Mr. Rahul Tripathi, Advocate, Mr. Kartik Chitale, Advocate and Mr. Niraj Sharma, Advocate
For the Respondent:Ms. Pankhuri, Advocate, Mr. Tushar Singh, Advocate and Mr. S. K. Verma, Advocate.

IMPORTANT POINT
Directions not capable of being carried out cannot be sustained.

Headnote:(a) Administration of justice - Judicial propriety - Appellant neither even issued notice nor heard in the appeal having consequences on her - Directions not capable of being carried out - Order, held wholly without jurisdiction and legally unsustainable. (Para 12)

       (b) Administration of justice - Judicial propriety - Appeal against order of trial court rejecting application under order IX Rule 13 for condonation of delay - High Court, instead, issuing directions in the matrimonial matter - Directions not capable of being carried out - Not sustainable. (Para 13)

       Facts of the case:

       The appellant herein is the second wife of respondent No. 1 (husband). After passing of the ex parte decree for dissolution of marriage of respondent No. 1 with respondent No.2 and expiry of period of limitation for filing appeal, respondent No. 1 (husband) entered into matrimony with her (appellant). On the other hand, respondent No. 2 (first wife of respondent No.1) filed the appeal of which the appellant had no knowledge, but the fact of respondent No.1 having married the appellant was indeed stated before the High Court. However, when respondent No.1 stated that she was having no problem with the appellant, the High Court set aside the ex parte decree and directed that, "the parties shall live together as husband and wife." The appellant herein (second wife of respondent No.1) filed review petition (R.P. No. 48 of 2014). The Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the said review petition.

       Finding of the Court:

       Impugned directions are wholly without jurisdiction.

       Result: Appeals allowed. Matter remitted.

JUDGMENT

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

Leave granted.

2. These appeals are filed against the final judgment and order dated 17.10.2014 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore in Review Petition No. 48 of 2014 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the said Review Petition filed by the appellant herein and upheld the order dated 09.08.2011 passed by the Single Judge of the High Court in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 709 of 2005.

3. A few facts need mention hereinbelow for the disposal of these appeals, which involve a short point.

4. The dispute, which is the subject matter of these appeals, is between the husband (respondent No. 1) and his two wives (appellant and respondent No. 2). It arises out of the matrimonial suit decided by the Family Court between respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

5. By impugned order dated 09.08.2011, the High Court disposed of the appeal (M.A. No. 709/2005) filed by respondent No.2 (first wife) against respondent No. 1 (husband) under Order 43 Rule 1 (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as "CPC") against the order dated 10.12.2004 passed by the Additional District Judge, Kukshi in MJC No. 35 of 2003.

6. By order dated 10.12.2004, the ADJ had declined to condone the delay in filing the application filed by respondent No. 2 under Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC and thereby declined to set aside the ex parte decree dated 23.08.2003 passed in C.S. No. 09-A/02 by the said Court.

7. The appellant herein is the second wife of respondent No. 1 (husband). It is the case of the appellant that after passing of the ex parte decree for dissolution of marriage of respondent No. 1 with respondent No.2 and expiry of period of limitation for filing appeal, respondent No. 1 (husband) entered into matrimony with her (appellant). On the other hand, respondent No. 2 (first wife of respondent No.1) filed the aforesaid appeal of which the appellant had no knowledge, but the fact of respondent No.1 having married the appellant was indeed stated before the High Court. However, when respondent No.1 stated that she was having no problem with the appellant, the High Court set aside the exparte decree passed on 23.08.2003 in C.S. No.09-A of 2002 and directed that, "the parties shall live together as husband and wife." The appellant herein (second wife of respondent No.1), on coming to know of the aforesaid order dated 09.08.2011 passed by the Single Judge of the High Court in M.A. No.709/2005, filed review petition (R.P. No. 48 of 2014) before the High Court. The Division Bench of the High Court, by order dated 17.10.2014, dismissed the said review petition. Challenging both the orders, the appellant has filed the present appeals by way of special leave in this Court.

8. Heard Mr. A.K. Chitale, learned senior counsel for the appellant and Ms. Pankhuri and Mr. S.K. Verma, learned counsel for the respondents.

9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we are constrained to allow these appeals, set aside the impugned orders and remand the case to the High Court for deciding the miscellaneous appeal afresh on merits in accordance with law.

10. The need to remand the case has occasioned because we find that the appellant was not made a party to the appeal and nor she was heard by the High Court.

11. On perusal of the impugned order dated 09.08.2011, we find that the High Court, even after taking note of the factum of the marriage of the appellant with respondent No.1, has not adverted to the consequences thereof and has given such directions, which may not be capable of due performance.

12. In such a situation, where the impugned order was passed without hearing the appellant and not issuing any notice of the appeal to her and yet giving such directions, which may not be capable of being carried out, the impugned order, in our view, is wholly without jurisdiction and legally unsustainable and it has to be set aside on this short ground alone.





Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top