The principle of in pari delicto applies when parties are in equal fault, and neither can obtain relief from the court.

Manmohan, J.

1. Present suit has been filed for declaration and permanent injunction by the plaintiff against his wife, daughter and son-in-law.

2. Plaintiff seeks a declaration that the Memorandums of Undertaking/Compromise Deed/Undertaking dated 30th May, 2012 and 1st April, 2013 as well as final decree of Divorce dated 06th May, 2013 and the First Motion as well as its terms of Settlement dated 06th July, 2012 and registered Gift Deed dated 14th May, 2009 in favour of defendant No. l with respect to property bearing No. 5/3, First Floor, East Patel Nagar, New Delhi, are null and void. Plaintiff also seeks injunction restraining defendants from transferring or creating third party rights in property bearing No. 3/3, East Patel Nagar, New Delhi and 5/3, (First Floor), East Patel Nagar, New Delhi.

3. Mr. Vinay Kumar Garg, learned senior counsel for the plaintiff stated that the plaintiff in depression due to huge losses suffered by him as a consequence of a fire incident in his warehouse, had transferred all his assets in favour of defendants and also took divorce from defendant No. 1 by mutual consent.

4. Mr. Garg further stated that there was no intention on the part of the plaintiff in either obtaining divorce or in transferring any of the properties. In support of his contention, he pointed out that the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 had after obtaining the decree of divorce visited several places including Hong Kong and China together.

5. Having perused the plaint, this Court finds that it is the case of the plaintiff that in order to save his properties due to huge losses, he had transferred all his properties in the name of his wife, daughter and son-in-law.

6. In the plaint, it has also been averred that though the plaintiff never had any dispute with his wife or intention to end his marital relationship, yet he had obtained a divorce.

7. It has also been stated in the plaint that plaintiff and defendant No. 1 had been living together as husband-wife not only immediately prior to the decree of divorce, but also subsequent thereto. Some of the relevant averments in the plaint are reproduced herein-below:--

“5. .............The plaintiff was made to believe to take divorce from Defendant No. 1 though only for the name sake. The Plaintiff trapped in his own circumstances, was completely incapable of seeing through the designs of the Defendant No. 3 and fell prey to his own son-in-law, the Defendant No. 3 herein. The Plaintiff was duped to believe that in order to save his properties, the Plaintiff should transfer all his properties in the name of the Defendants and also take divorce from the Defendant No. 1 by mutual consent. However, it is a fact that neither the Plaintiff nor the Defendant No. 1 ever had any dispute or intention to end their marital relationship nor did the Plaintiff ever intended to actually transfer the right, title or interest in any of his properties in the name of any of the Defendants......

xxx xxx xxx

11. ............It is also a matter of fact that the Plaintiff never intended to divorce the Defendant No. 1 and even the Defendant No. 1 never intended to put her marital relationship with the Plaintiff to an end. Even after the decree of divorce dated 06.05.2013, the Plaintiff and the Defendant No. 1 continued to live together as husband and wife........

xxx xxx xxx

13. That the Plaintiff and the Defendant No. 1 even after the aforesaid decree of divorce, had all these years been living together as husband and wife. The Plaintiff and the Defendant No. 1 visited several places after 06.05.2013 including Hong Kong and China. The Defendant No. 1 accompanied the Plaintiff as his wife and in her visa applications she has clearly acknowledged herself as the wife of the Plaintiff..........

(Emphasis supplied)

8. A perusal of the documents file reveals that though in the motions filed in a petition seeking dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce under Section 13-B(2) as well as in the Memorandum of Un