Skip to main content

Courts can't annul decree of divorce by mutual consent

The Punjab and Haryana high court has held that mutual consent divorce orders passed by the court cannot be annulled by an assertion of any party later that the decree was meant to be a sham for facilitating employment in a foreign country.

Dismissing a petition filed by a woman from Sonipat district in Haryana, Justice K Kannan of the HC held that marriage was the only contract that couldn't be annulled by mere wish of parties outside the court.
The woman had claimed that she had agreed for a divorce by mutual consent after her husband convinced her that by dissolving the marriage, his prospects of going abroad and securing necessary travel documents would brighten.

She never believed that the decree of the court was 'really' meant to end her matrimonial relationship. She had approached the court to quash the divorce orders issued by the lower court. Hearing the plea, the HC on January 21 observed that proceedings of court cannot be brought under thick clouds of irreverence if a party thought that what was stated in a court order was meant to be untruth and not to be acted upon. "She wanted to contend that by dissolving the marriage, she was assisting herself for a great future for themselves for living together in a foreign country. This absurd assertion could reside only in the figment of imagination of the petitioner herself and cannot be allowed to infect a solemn judicial exercise that is undertaken to deliver in a decree for dissolution," held the HC while dismissing her petition.
Poonam, 26, was married to Naveen Kumar, 29, of Sonipat in May 2011. In May 2012, her husband told her that he had applied for a job abroad and would get it if his marital status shown to be single. Thus, she filed a mutual divorce petition.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

MACT - Permanent disability - calculate - compensation - Supreme Court - Part 2

1) C. K. Subramonia Iyer vs. T. Kunhikuttan Nair - AIR 1970 SC 376 2) R. D. Hattangadi vs. Pest Control (India) Ltd. - 1995 (1) SCC 551 3) Baker vs. Willoughby - 1970 AC 467 4) Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co.Ltd. - 2010(10) SCALE 298 5) Yadava Kumar v. D.M., National Insurance Co. Ltd. - 2010 (8) SCALE 567) 5. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following : Pecuniary damages (Special Damages) (i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure. (ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising : (a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment; (b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability. (iii) Future medical expenses. Non-pecuniary damages (General Damages) (iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries. (v) Loss of amen

Distinction between “Loss to the Estate” and “Loss of Estate”

A subtle but fundamental distinction between “Loss of Estate” and “Loss to the Estate” was discussed in Omana P.K. and others v. Francis Edwin and others (2011 (4) KLT 952). This Judgment was challenged before the Apex Court, which has now dismissed the Appeal. The question raised in this case, was whether a certain sum which the dependants received as compensation for untimely death of Judgment debtor in a motor accident is attachable in Execution Proceedings. In this case, Justice Thomas P. Joseph speaking for the Kerala High Court had held the following (relying on The Chairman, A.P.S.R.T.C, Hyderabad vs. Smt. Shafiya Khatoon and Others) Capitalized value of the income spent on the dependents, subject to relevant deductions, is the pecuniary loss sustained by the members of his family through his death. The capitalized value of his income, subject to relevant deductions, would be the loss caused to the estate by his death. In other words, what amount the dependents would have got le

Full & Final payment - No dues certificate - end of contract

Whether after the contract comes to an end by completion of the contract work and acceptance of the final bill in full and final satisfaction and after issuance a `No Due Certificate' by the contractor Supreme Court of India Supreme Court of India R.L. Kalathia & Co. vs State Of Gujarat on 14 January, 2011 Author: P Sathasivam Bench: P. Sathasivam, B.S. Chauhan IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3245 OF 2003 R.L. Kalathia & Co Appellant(s) Versus State of Gujarat .... Respondent(s) JUDGMENT P. Sathasivam, J. 1) This appeal is directed against the judgment and final order dated 07.10.2002 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat whereby the High Court set aside the judgment and decree dated 14.12.1982 passed by the Civil Judge, (S.D.), Jamnagar directing the State Government to pay a sum of Rs.2,27,758/- with costs and interest and dismissed the Civil Suit as well as cross objections filed by the a