IMPORTANT POINT
The Family Court can nullify its own divorce decree if obtained through fraud, emphasizing the necessity of meeting legal prerequisites for mutual consent divorce.

JUDGMENT :

Om Prakash Shukla, J.

1. Heard Shri Rajendra Prasad Tiwari, learned Counsel representing the appellant/husband. Although, the respondent/ wife has filed her counter-affidavit, however, none appeared on behalf of the respondent/wife at the time of final hearing.

2. The appellant/husband has filed the present appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 read with Order XIII Rule 1-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 against the judgment and order dated 01.08.2012 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow, in Original Suit No. 1411 of 2005 : Smt. Yashoda Devi Vs. Kuldeep Singh.

3. Apparently, in the aforesaid suit, the respondent/wife had sought declaration of the judgment/decree dated 08.07.2005 passed in Original Suit No. 32 of 2005 filed under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act, 1955’) by which divorce on the ground of Mutual Consent was granted, to be a nullity. Vide judgment and order 01.08.2012, the learned Family Court, while allowing the suit, has set-aside the judgment and decree dated 08.07.2005 and has held it to be a nullity, consequently, appellant/husband has been prohibited from marrying another woman unless he takes divorce from respondent/wife in accordance with law.

4. The factual matrix relevant to decide the present appeal can be captured from the records as herein below :-

i. The appellant/husband married the respondent/wife on 05.05.1996 in accordance with Hindu rites and rituals. After marriage, respondent/wife was residing at her husband’s/in-laws’ house situated at village Haluni, Post Sangla Koti, district Pauri Garhwal, Uttranchal (now Uttarakhand). Out of their wedlock, two male children were born on 21.07.1997 and 05.07.2000, respectively.

ii. Appellant/husband was serving in the Indian Army. He was transferred and posted at Lucknow on his personal request on 25.04.2003. As per the appellant, he was allotted an official accommodation at Lucknow on 01.11.2004. He then brought the respondent/wife and his younger son to Lucknow in November, 2004 and lived together at Lucknow till January, 2005. As there were irreconcilable differences between the two, they decided to part ways amicably, therefore, on 06.01.2015, a suit under Section 13-B of the Act, 1955 for dissolution of marriage on ground of mutual consent was filed before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow, which was registered as Original Suit No. 32 of 2005 and was decreed on 08.07.2005.

iii. After passing of the decree, as per the respondent/wife, the appellant/husband took her to her in-laws’ house where she stayed for two days and then he left her at her parents’ home at Dehradun on the premise that as soon as he arranges a house at Joshimath where he had been posted, he will take her with him but, he never came back. The respondent/wife and her father went to her in-laws’ house to inquire, who, ill-treated them, and also disclosed that their son (appellant herein) had divorced her at Lucknow. It is then that respondent/wife came to know about the divorce. She then came to Lucknow with her father, met an Advocate, and inquired about the case in the Family Court, Lucknow and then filed Suit No. 1411 of 2005, as referred above.

iv. The case of the respondent/wife is that while staying with the appellant/husband, she was made to sign blank papers and photographs which, as per the appellant/husband, were necessary for his service related matters and for this very purpose, she was again made to sign papers and photographs after six months and was also taken to a place which, according to the appellant, was his office. By practicing deceit and fraud not only on the respondent but also on the Court, he was able to obtain a decree of divorce for cancellation of which the subsequent suit was filed.

v. Suit No. 1411 of 2005 was filed on 10.10.2005 by the respondent/wife within about three months of the decree in the earlier suit dated 08.07.2005.

vi. Notice was issued to