LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Tajobsindia (Senior Partner )     18 February 2011

Bombay HC fines wife Rs 10k for lying in divorce case

MUMBAI: Not being truthful while explaining a delay in challenging her divorce has cost a woman dear in the Bombay high court (HC). Justice Roshan Dalvi directed Mumbai resident Seema Patil to pay Rs 10,000 as damages to her husband Ajit for filing an application to condone the delay by giving false reasons.

The judge set aside a family court order refusing to condone the delay, but said it would be subject to "payment of compensatory costs by the wife to the husband in view of her initial false case". The HC said if Seema paid the amount within 14 days, her plea against the divorce would be heard by the family court. "If the costs are not paid, the petition will stand dismissed and the decree of divorce will be confirmed," Justice Dalvi added.

The court said the manner in which the family court dealt with the case, giving it an elaborate hearing, was "incorrect".

"An application for condoning the delay, whether of 10 or 14 days, does not deserve evidence to be led, issues to be framed, precedents to be considered, reasons to be given and judgment to be pronounced in the detailed manner that the (family court) judge has done, given the enormous arrears of petitions pending in the family court," the HC said.

Ajit had obtained an ex parte divorce from Seema in June 2007. She filed an application before the Bandra family court against the divorce order and urged the court to forgive the delay in filing the application as she came to know about the order only in June 2009. But the court, on the basis of evidence, found out that Seema would have been made aware of the divorce verdict as early as April 2009. The family court judge dismissed her application, following which Seema moved the HC.

The HC said that while the family court was right in holding that Seema's pleas were false, the procedure to decide an "innocuous" application seeking condoning of the delay was wrong. The HC reminded the family court judge to follow not only the letter of the law (family court act), but also its spirit.


Source:  
Bombay HC fines wife Rs 10k for lying in divorce case - The Times of India https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/Bombay-HC-fines-wife-Rs-10k-for-lying-in-divorce-case/articleshow/7518189.cms#ixzz1EJ7b4nTD



Learning

 16 Replies

Raj Kumar Makkad (Adv P & H High Court Chandigarh)     18 February 2011

It is a gud decision.

Gopal Singh ( Advocate)     18 February 2011

True it is a good Judgment.


(Guest)

Bas Rs.10,000???

 

When will India learn to impose "HEAVY FINES" as in other advanced countries like Singapore,Dubai and so on?

 

Then only people will think twice before breaking any law.Ain't it?

 

Just recently I read that urinating in public will attract a fine of Rs. 100/-.

 

Oh my God!   Rs. 100??

 

If Ajay Devgan urinates on a road,will he take this fine seriously?

Or even a middle class man?


(Guest)

Bas Rs.10,000???

To isme news wali kya baat hai?Aisa kya heavy fine hai,jo news me aa gaya?

 

 

So,will India learn to impose "HEAVY FINES" as in other advanced countries like Singapore,Dubai and so on?

 

Then only people will think twice before breaking any law.Ain't it?

 

Just recently I read that urinating in public will attract a fine of Rs. 100/-.

 

Oh my God!   Rs. 100??

 

If Ajay Devgan urinates on a road,will he take this fine seriously?

Or even a middle class man?


(Guest)

Yes, meenal very well said 

I india many laws are not updated ,as todays money reupees values 

But our indian govt should not have concern about it thay all are busy in other activities.

Whatever we do we feel with good faith and for the healthy society ,these are all our belief and thoughts ,suggestion  but our indian govt are very busy ,vey busy

RAKHI BUDHIRAJA ADVOCATE (LAWYER AT BUDHIRAJA & ASSOCIATES SUPREME COURT OF INDIA)     18 February 2011

AS PER MY VIEW SHE SHOULD BE PUNISHED BY SENDING HER BEHIND THE BARS BESIDES IMPOSING FINE UPON HER AS TODAY MONEY HAVE NO VALUE FOR SUCH TYPE OF PEOPLE.

Damayanti (Unemployed)     18 February 2011

What does the HC judgement mean?

 

 

Does it imply that ex-parte divorce decree winner was NOT supposed to challenge the set-aside application by wife?

 

 

Husband must have contested the set aside plea by wife.

That's why judge might have given an elaborate chance to wife to prove the genuinity of her condonation excuse.

 

This has underlined that 'ex-parte' decrees arediscardable by paying fines.

 

 

Husband should have remained absent for the 'this set-aside trial in HC' and he could have challenged it in second appeal !!!!

 

 

This citation has created a big business '1. ex-parte, 2. set-aside at trial court, 3. set-aside at HC; cycle.

 

 

It brought the husband back is at square one i.e. at step 1!!!!!

 

 

Good Judgement.....which has legitimised one more delaying tactic !!!

N.K.Assumi (Advocate)     19 February 2011

I appreciate the decision.

Adinath@Avinash Patil (advocate)     19 February 2011

good judgment

Jamai Of Law (propra)     19 February 2011

How is it a good judgement? Damayanti ji please read it again!!!

 

HC Judgement hasn't set-aside the the ex-parte decree decree!!!

HC has only allowed the appeal/writ against that woman's condonation plea so as to be able to file the set-aside application against the ex-parte decree!!!

 

 

After wife pays the fine, her plea of 'condonation of delay' would deem to be allowed.... and then .........her set-aside application against 'ex-parte decree' would be heard for the first time by the Bandra FC!!!

 

 

Husband got ex-parte decree in june 2007.

Wife applied for set-aside Application  AND condonation of delay in June 2009!

 

But contenion and debate was that she got to know about it in April 2009, then why did she take time between April2009-June2009 !!!....

But there may be a good case that Wife was probably kept in dark for almost 2 years about the ex-parte decree between June2007-April2009!!!!

 

set-aside application against ex-parte decree may have real merits and husband may also have played a fraud!!!

 

But unless delay is condoned, set-aside application can't even be heard!!!

 

So HC's contensions were correct!!...that quckly condone the delay .......... and hear the main 'burning issue' i.e. set-aside application!! 


Husband side would have raised trivial objections of 'locus standi' but in the 'Interests of justice' and in order for the truth to come out, condonation of delay should have been granted and that too very quickly without much deliberations on it!!!

1 Like

Jamai Of Law (propra)     19 February 2011

Does anyone has this Bombay HC citation?

 

Please post it if you have it (It has a great purpose in trial court in many perspectives...as there is a reminder by HC.............. to NOT use only letter of law but also the spirit of the law!!!!)

 

Thanks

1 Like

Dalip Kumar Chhabra (Advocate)     20 February 2011

Imposing fine is one aspect of the matter. The facts of the case proved falsehood of women, then she should have been heavly dealt with in view of law 1987  Delhi Law Times   given by  DB of Delhi High court by booking her for criminal offences as well.

Decision would lay foundation to give lessons to fraudulent litigants.  

Dalip Kumar Chhabra (Advocate)     20 February 2011

Judgment would bring the cat out of the bag to book fraudulent litigants. For finding support see judgment passed by  DB  of Delhi high court reported in   1987 Delhi Law Times 

Dalip

Tajobsindia (Senior Partner )     20 February 2011

Originally posted by :Dalip Kumar Chhabra
"
Imposing fine is one aspect of the matter. The facts of the case proved falsehood of women, then she should have been heavly dealt with in view of law 1987  Delhi Law Times   given by  DB of Delhi High court by booking her for criminal offences as well.

Decision would lay foundation to give lessons to fraudulent litigants.  
"

 @ Adv. Chhabra

Fo rthe benefit of readers kindly quote names of parties otherwise DLT publshed in 1987 some 315 reported cases and digging them is a ..........
hence awaiting names of parties to some 1987 DLT reporting as suggested to have a look by you.

1 Like

Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register  


Recent Topics


View More

Related Threads


Loading