Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 251 (ORI)

Jayanti Jena v. Family Court, Cuttack

2010-04-07

L.MOHAPATRA, S.PANDA

body2010
ORDER 7.4.2010 — Appellant is the wife of respondent. She had filed an appli¬cation under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act before the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack in Civil Proceeding No.494 of 2001 for restitution of conjugal rights. After service of notice, respondent appeared and filed written statement stating therein that a decree of divorce has already been passed between the parties on 5.5.2007 in Civil Proceeding No.108 of 2001 and, therefore, application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights is no more maintainable. Accepting the contention of the respondent that there has been a decree of divorce between the parties, the application filed by the appellant under Section 9 of the Act for restitution of conjugal rights was dropped as not maintainable. Challenging the said order, this appeal has been filed. 2. Shri Das, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the respondent had filed Civil Proceeding No.108 of 2001 seeking for a decree of divorce but no notice was served in the said case on the appellant. Some one forging the signature of appellant filed vakalatnama in the said proceeding and did not contest the proceeding, as a result of which, an ex parte decree has been passed in the said case. Coming to know about such decree after filing of the written statement in Civil Proceeding No.494 of 2009, the appellant filed Misc. Case No.17 of 2005 to set aside the said ex parte decree of divorce passed in C.P. No.108 of 2001. The said Misc. Case was dismissed for non-prosecution and another Misc.Case bearing No.98 of 2006 was filed for restoration of Misc. Case No.17 of 2005. The said Misc. Case was dismissed on 8.10.2007. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, any fraud committed on the Court in a proceed¬ing can also be adjudicated in a collateral proceeding. In this connection, reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the appellant on a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath and others reported in AIR 1994 SC 853 . The learned counsel for the respondent sub¬mitted that in Civil Proceeding No.108 of 2001, the appellant had entered appearance and she having not taken any further step, an ex parte decree has been passed. The learned counsel for the respondent sub¬mitted that in Civil Proceeding No.108 of 2001, the appellant had entered appearance and she having not taken any further step, an ex parte decree has been passed. The said decree was not chal¬lenged in appeal and the application filed under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. for setting aside the said ex parte decree was also dis¬missed for non-prosecution. The said ex parte decree having attained finality, the respondent has already taken a second wife and, therefore, there is no question of restitution of conjugal rights at this stage. 3. In order to find out as to whether the appellant had entered appearance in Civil Proceeding No.108 of 2001 or not, we called for the records of the said case and found that signature of the appellant appearing in the vakalatanama completely differs from the signature appearing in the vakalatanama filed by her in this appeal. Prima facie it appears that she had not entered appearance in the said proceeding and vakalatnama had been filed on her behalf by impersonating her. From the order sheet, it appears that by the time the said vakalatnama was filed, notice had not been served on the appellant. These two circumstances create a doubt in the mind of the Court as to whether the appel¬lant had been served with any notice in the said proceeding in which ex parte decree has been passed by the Court. Now the question that arises for consideration is whether in this pro¬ceeding, the Court can look into the alleged fraud committed in a collateral proceeding. In the decision referred to above in the very first paragraph, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed in the following manner :- “Fraud-avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal” observed Chief Justice Edward Coke of England about three cen¬turies ago. It is the settled proposition of law that a judgment or decree obtained by playing fraud on the Court is a nullity and non est in the eyes of law. Such a judgment/decree-by the first Court or by the highest Court-has to be treated as a nullity by every Court, whether superior or inferior. It can be challenged in any Court even in collateral proceedings.” 4. Such a judgment/decree-by the first Court or by the highest Court-has to be treated as a nullity by every Court, whether superior or inferior. It can be challenged in any Court even in collateral proceedings.” 4. The present application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act having been dismissed solely on the ground that there has been a decree of divorce between the parties, we are of the view that the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack should examine the case afresh with reference to the records of Civil Proceeding No.108 of 2001 and the decision referred to above and find out as the whether the decree passed in the said proceeding is a nullity on account of alleged fraud committed on the Court. If he ultimately comes to a conclusion that the decree passed in the said proceeding is a nullity, this application can be enter¬tained on merits. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order and remit the matter back to the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack to reconsider the question in the light of the observation made above and the decision referred to in this case. The appeal is accordingly allowed. Appeal allowed.