ALLEGATION THAT THE APPELLANT HUSBAND PLAYED FRAUD ON THE FAMILY COURT AND OBTAINED DECREE OF DISSOLUTION OF MARRIAGE

ALLEGATION THAT THE APPELLANT HUSBAND PLAYED FRAUD ON THE FAMILY COURT AND OBTAINED DECREE OF DISSOLUTION OF MARRIAGE

The appellant husband filed a petition under Section 13(1) (i-a) and (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for dissolution of marriage. The notice issued to 1^st respondent-wife was retuned as refused, the Family Court held service of notice on the wife as sufficient. The 1^st respondent-wife was placed ex parte and the case was adjourned. The first respondent-wife’s counsel filed vakalathnama and an application under Order IX, Rule 7 of C.P.C, the said application was allowed, the ex parte order was set aside. The 1^st respondent-wife was absent and evidence was closed. Appellant-husband got himself examined as P.W-1 and got marked Exs. P1 to P4. Cross-examination of P.W-1 was taken as nil, the family Court allowed the petition and dissolved the marriage of the parties.

The 1^st respondent-wife challenged the judgement of the dissolution of marriage before the High Court on the grounds of fraud.

The main allegation made by the 1^st respondent-wife is that the husband played fraud on the Family Court and obtained the decree of dissolution of marriage. In support of such submission, she submitted that she had not engaged any Counsel in the case and that blank Vakalathnama was taken at the time of settlement for their mutual divorce and that she never appeared before the Family Court.

No question as to whether the appellant-husband played fraud on the Family Court and obtained the decree of dissolution of marriage or whether the appellant-husband committed any offence punishable under the provisions of Indian Penal Code was framed by the High Court. The High Court failed to notice that this is a case in which there is a disputed question of fact which cannot be decided without faming a proper issue and in absence of evidence on record. Consequently the Hon’ble Supreme Court had set aside the impugned judgement passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka and thereby the appellant-husband appeal was allowed. [Sunil Vs. Sakshi@Shweta].

Prepared by: S. Hemanth

Advocate at Hemanth & Associates

ONCE THE LABOUR COURT HAS EXERCISED THE DISCRETION JUDICIALLY, THE HIGH COURT CAN INTERFERE WITH THE AWARD, ONLY IF IT IS SATISFIED THAT THE AWARD OF THE LABOUR COURT IS VITIATED BY ANY FUNDAMENTAL FLAWS

ONCE THE LABOUR COURT HAS EXERCISED THE DISCRETION JUDICIALLY, THE HIGH COURT CAN INTERFERE WITH THE AWARD, ONLY IF IT IS SATISFIED THAT THE AWARD OF THE LABOUR COURT IS VITIATED BY ANY FUNDAMENTAL FLAWS

The appellant was served with article of charge alleging that he had secured appointment by producing a false transfer certificate. The enquiry officer submitted the report holding the appellant guilty for his misconduct. After affording opportunity to the appellant to show cause against the proposed punishment, the disciplinary authority passed the order imposing punishment of dismissal from service.

The appellant raised an industrial dispute before the III Additional Labour Court, Bangalore. The Labour Court directed the management of the corporation to reinstate the appellant in his original post with continuity of service but without backwages. In the Labour Court, appellant has produced notarized copies of orders passed by the respondent-Corporation in respect of other workmen, who have committed similar misconduct but were awarded lesser punishments.

The respondent-Corporation filed a writ petition before the High Court. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition holding that the punishment of dismissal from service was proportionate to the proved misconduct against the appellant.

The Supreme Court observed that the High Court did not keep in view the parameters laid down by this Court for exercise of jurisdiction by the High Court under Articles 226 and/or 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court can interfere with the award, only if it is satisfied that the award of the Labour Court is vitiated by any fundamental flaws.

The Supreme Court held that they do not find that the award passed by the Labour Court suffers from any such flaws. The appeal was allowed and the order of the High Court was set aside and the award passed by the Labour Court is restored. [K.V.S. Ram Vs. B.M.T.C]

Prepared by: S. Hemanth

Advocate at Hemanth & Associates