Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Shobha Dikshit, J.
GARIMA SINGH - Appellant
Versus
SANJAI SINGH - Respondents
Civil Revision 15 Of 1996
Decided On : 05/27/1996
The Allahabad High Court quashed a divorce decree obtained by fraud and restored the suit to its original number for a fresh trial. The court held that the trial court failed to exercise its inherent powers to correct its own proceedings when it was misled by a fraud played on it. The court also directed the District Judge to nominate another Civil Judge to decide the suit.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, Garima Singh, filed a suit for the cancellation of a decree of divorce obtained by her husband, Sanjai Singh, on the ground that the decree was obtained by fraud. The petitioner alleged that an imposter impersonating her had filed the suit for divorce and that she had never appeared before the court. The trial court rejected the petitioner's application to set aside the divorce decree, holding that it was not maintainable. The petitioner then filed a writ petition in the Allahabad High Court.
Finding of the Court:
The Allahabad High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the judgment and order of the trial court. The court held that the trial court had failed to exercise its inherent powers to correct its own proceedings when it was misled by a fraud played on it. The court also held that the decree of divorce was obtained by fraud and that the petitioner was entitled to have it set aside.
Issues: 1. Whether the trial court had jurisdiction to entertain the petitioner's application to set aside the divorce decree. 2. Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the petitioner's application. 3. Whether the decree of divorce was obtained by fraud.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the trial court had jurisdiction to entertain the petitioner's application to set aside the divorce decree under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which gives courts the inherent power to make orders necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of the court's process. 2. The court held that the trial court erred in rejecting the petitioner's application because the petitioner had made out a prima facie case of fraud. The court noted that the petitioner had never appeared before the court and that the imposter who had filed the suit for divorce had used a photograph of the petitioner on the petition. 3. The court held that the decree of divorce was obtained by fraud because the imposter had impersonated the petitioner and had misled the court into believing that the petitioner was the one who had filed the suit for divorce.
Final Decision: The Allahabad High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the judgment and order of the trial court. The court also directed the District Judge to nominate another Civil Judge to decide the suit.
( 1 ) PETITIONER has invoked the revisional/supervisory jurisdiction of this Court praying for quashing of Order dated 19. 2. 1996 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Divisional), sitapur, in Misc. Case No. 23 of 1996 by which an application moved by her under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the ex parte decree of divorce dated 27. 3. 1995 allegedly obtained by the respondent/husband, a sitting Rajya Sabha Member, by means of a fraud upon the Court has been rejected as not maintainable. Petitioners grievance is that her sacrosanct marriage with the respondent performed in the year 1973 as per Hindu customary rites and ceremonies at Allahabad has been dissolved by the impugned decree behind her back, thereby not only stripping her of her marital status but also the dignity and honour of a married hindu wife. Petitioner alleges that a collusive suit for decree of divorce under Hindu Marriage act was got filed by the respondent through an imposter impersonating the petitioner Smt. Garima Singh and thus fraudulently obtained the impugned decree of divorce dated 27. 3. 95.
( 2 ) SINCE fraud on the Court and serious irregularities in the conduct of the case have been alleged, therefore, it is necessary to narrate the facts as averred by the petitioner in the application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure in detail, the same are as follows:
( 3 ) SUIT No. 78 of 1995 was instituted on 25. 2. 1995 by one Smt. Garima Singh, claiming to be the wife of Sri Sanjai Singh, the respondent herein, in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), sitapur, under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act praying that by means of a decree of divorce, her marriage with Sri Sanjai Singh, respondent, resident of Lucknow be dissolved. It was averred in the suit that the petitioner was married to the respondent on 14. 12. 1973 as per hindu rites and ceremonies at Allahabad and the parties last resided together till 2. 4. 1992 at sitapur. Out of the said wedlock three children, now aged between 18 years to 12 years, were born. The sole ground on which the dissolution of marriage was sought was stated in para 4 of the said petition, "that with the passage of time, disputes due to difference of opinion even in petty matters arose between the parties to this petition and it has become quite impossible for them to live together. " Complete desertion was stated to be with effect from 2. 4. 1992, i. e. , the date since when the respondent/husband is residing at Lucknow. It was specifically averred in para 8 of this petition that there was no collusion between the parties The cause of action was said to have accrued on 2. 4. 1992 when husband and wife finally parted company at Sitapur to live separately. The territorial jurisdiction, therefore, was also claimed at Sitapur. The suit was valued for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction at Rs. 50,000/ -. However, a fixed Court-fee of rs. 37. 50was affixed on the petition for divorce. Interestingly a photograph of young Smt. Garima Singh was affixed on the first page of the petition.
( 4 ) SUIT was presented on 25. 2. 1995 through Counsel and summons were issued on the same day and 15. 3. 1995 was fixed for filing of written statement and 22. 3. 1995 for framing of issues. On 15. 3. 1995 written statement was not filed and neither party appeared before the Court as per proceedings recorded in the suit. On 22. 3. 1995 the suit was directed to proceed ex-parte in the absence of the respondent and decree of divorce was granted on 27. 3. 1995. Petitioner states that she never appeared before the Court as is also clear from the proceedings.
( 5 ) A written statement was filed in the said suit by the respondent re-iterating the ground of divorce taken in the petition, i. e. , "with the passage of time, difference of opinion in petty matters has been arisen between the parties", collusion was denied and respondent also prayed for grant of decree of divorce. In o
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
