9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the review/recall petition is maintainable against the consent decree. 2. Whether the husband-respondent obtained the wife-appellant's consent for divorce by fraud, coercion, or undue influence. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Maintainability of the Review/Recall Petition Against the Consent Decree The inherent powers of the Court under Section 151 CPC are very wide and are not in any way controlled by the provisions of the Code. They are in addition to the powers specially conferred on the Court by the Code and the Courts are free to exercise them. The only limitation put on the exercise of the inherent powers is that when exercised, they are not in conflict with what has been expressly provided for, or those exhaustively covering a particular topic, or against the intention of the Legislature. These limitations are not due to the fact that the inherent power is controlled by the Code, but because it should be presumed that the procedure specifically provided for orders in certain circumstances is dictated by the interests of justice. Inherent powers are to be exercised where specific provision does not meet the necessities of the case. By reading the judgments of the Apex Court, we have no hesitation in holding that the review/recall petition would not lie. If the evidence on record discloses that one party has played fraud on the other party, in such event the only remedy left over to the party against whom the fraud is played to file a separate suit for setting aside the decree obtained by fraud, But if it is proved that one of the party has played fraud on the Court, then only the review petition is maintainable under Section 151 C.P.C. Issue 2: Allegation of Fraud, Coercion, or Undue InfluenceNow we proceed to consider in the present case whether the fraud has been played by the husband-respondent herein on the Court or on the party. For the aforesaid purpose we have to scrutinise the evidence, which was led by the parties to the litigation. As stated earlier, the wife-appellant herein herself examined on oath as PW1. According to her evidence, she was married to the husband-respondent herein in Hyderabad on 14-6-1994. About 15 days prior to the marriage, there were marriage talks between her parents and the parents of the husband-respondent herein. The husband-respondent herein demanded rupees three lakhs towards dowry. But the parents of the wife-appellant herein expressed their inability to meet the huge demand of three lakhs. They promised to give some amount in cash and some in kind and the marriage was solemnised. According to the version of the wife-appellant herein, 2 or 3 months after the delivery, the husband-respondent herein demanded Rs. 25 lakhs from her parents for his business. The wife-appellant herein was sent to her parents' house to bring money. Thereafter the mediations took place and the wife-appellant herein was taken to the house of the husband-respondent herein. She lived in the matrimonial house for three years till January, 1999 at "Alliance house". Then they were shifted to the house at West Marredpally. According to her version she went to Lathur along with her husband to attend the marriage of wife's uncle's daughter named 'Rama. Videos and photos were taken. With this part of evidence, the learned senior Counsel Mr. C Pardhasarathy pointed out certain documents filed by the wife-appellant herein. Exs.A1 and A2 are the letters written on two occasions on 29-9-1994 and 12-7-1995. The wife-appellant herein wrote those letters to her mother stating that the husband-respondent herein is demanding money. The learned senior Counsel further pointed out Ex.A-3 certified copy of F.I.R. in Cr.No.264/98 in which the residential address of the husband-respondent herein was given. It is also a complaint filed by both of them alleging that the parents of the wife-appellant herein had kidnapped their son. Ex.A-4 is the office copy of the notice dated 13-9-1999. Advanced wedding card is Ex.A-6 inviting the husband-respondent herein to attend the marriage of Rama. Exs.A-9 to A-32 are the photographs with negatives. Ex.A-33 is the corresponding negative of the programme. With these documents on record, it was contended by the learned Counsel that if there was a divorce, there was no necessity for the relations of the wife-appellant herein to invite the husband-respondent herein to attend the marriage of Rama. While rebutting the aforesaid arguments, the learned Counsel Mr. Vilas V. Afzulpurkar submitted at the Bar that the wife-appellant herein and the husband-respondent herein were also otherwise related before their marriage and therefore there was nothing wrong on the part of the uncle of the wife-appellant herein to invite the husband, respondent herein to attend the marriage of his daughter Rama. When both the parties had gone to the marriage, they did not go together but in the function hall they met with each other and some photographs were taken at the time of marriage function. It does not mean that the wife-appellant herein and the husband-respondent herein went together as husband and wife to attend the marriage of Rama. The learned senior Counsel Mr. C Pardhasarathy further submitted at the Bar that both the parties were living together. She was threatened from disclosing to any one that a joint petition for divorce was filed. The evidence of the wife-appellant herein discloses that she used to go outside her house for giving phone calls for her parents. She also visited her parents' house on many occasions. She had also gone to the house of her advocate. She also went along with her husband to file a joint petition for divorce. The Family Court Judge recorded her evidence. Even on that occasion she did not speak to any one regarding the threat and coercion given by the husband-respondent herein to sign the joint petition for divorce. She had also admitted that she attended several marriages of her relatives after she filed the joint petition in the Court but she did not inform to any one that her signature was obtained forcibly. She also stated in her evidence that her own brother is an advocate by profession, inspite of this position, she did not inform even to her brother that she was forcibly made to sign the joint petition under Section 13(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act. As stated earlier, the evidence of the other witnesses were also led by the wife-appellant herein on her behalf. Their evidence is of no much significance in deciding the issue in question. By looking to that conduct of the wife-appellant herein, we are of the considered view that the theory put forward by the wife-appellant herein that she was made to sign the joint petition under coercion and threat is a totally concocted story. Therefore, on facts also we are of the considered view that the wife-appellant herein was not able to prove the fact that the husband-respondent herein had played fraud on her by obtaining the signature for divorce by mutual consent. One more argument advanced by the learned senior Counsel Mr. C. Pardhasarathy that no lady would give up the custody of the child and would also give up the right of maintenance. This fact also would prove that her consent to the divorce petition was obtained by playing fraud or coercion or threat on her. We are not in agreement with the submission made by the learned senior Counsel because the wife-appellant herein is an educated lady. She is a graduate. She used to speak and write in English. She had all opportunities to complain to many people if at all the husband-respondent herein played fraud on her but she did not choose to do so. This fact itself is sufficient to prove that on her own accord, she had agreed to sign the divorce petition as the husband-respondent herein used to give mental torture to her by demanding a dowry of Rs. 25 lakhs for doing business. Demanding dowry after so many years of marriage and that is also a huge sum, drew the wife-appellant herein to go for divorce by mutual consent. If she had given up the custody of the child and her right of maintenance, she did so with open eyes for whatever reasons known to her. Considering the facts on record, we are convinced that the husband-respondent herein did not play any type of fraud in obtaining her consent for mutual divorce under Section 13(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act and therefore we are of the considered view that there is no merit in the appeal. We further hold that the learned Judge rightly dismissed the said I.A. for reviewing/recalling the petition. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No costs.
|
