Objection as 'Due diligence' vs 'fraud on Court'

'Doctrine Equitable Defense' :-

It covers many things and it does include laches, failure of due diligence, estoppel, res judicata etc

But Evidence act sec 44 supercedes and overrides resjudicata in there is 'fraud on court'.

Which weighs more in culpability?...

Fraud on court...Or...Failure to due diligence

@ Author

I am taking part of your good arguments and ask yourself below two que.


Que.: How you can prove that now the victim has 'conclusive proof' I mean have anyone confronted them to be legal documents?
Well was these newfound income details ever challenged by you before the Order on which it was announced to now call it as "conclusive proof / evidence" as per S. 4 IEA ! In my opinion NO, all that you had earlier was guess work and in the absence of any S. 151 CPC application from your side for "call for his income records" and or even Notice ot Produce Income records you didnot dispense your duty to Court (assist the court is what I mean) till Order was announced. Now the second part is that, now you have just "proofs" and to you they look complete so simultaneously a Review is pending and it is obvious you have used certain grounds to Review the earlier award of trial Court in Sessions Court - right. So second que. comes is


Que.: Did you annex these untried "proof" as additional evidence to claim higher maint. award which is what is going to be merit of the Review case instead of proving / disproving due diligence and fraud on Court?

However your above two objection pleadings are quite good but lengthy for a applicant in-person to plead before Bench, however we wish Sessions Court hears them at length.

All the best. 

May I request you please answer my query simply assuming all above  to be true?

The new documentary evidence produced is such that even 'culprit' hasn't been able to deny. Now he has remained silent in his replies to that and not denied it also!!! 

But in reply to 'review' application he says that victim should have adduced it in previous proceeding!!! and victim failed in 'due diligence',

The 'Culprit' (who himself did 'fraud on court' ) himself is raising a 'Equitable defense' on the remedial action taken victim on his act of 'fraud'.

Is he allowed to do so?

'fraud on court' is a 'Equitable defense'.

AND 

'laches/failure of due diligence' is also a 'Equitable defense'/Affirmative defense.

But There is difference in level of magnanimity and severity, in above two.  

Which weighs more in culpability?...

Fraud on court...Or...Failure to due diligence

@ Author


I can only guess where you are struggling to wriggle out ! However this besides the point;


1. The definition of fraud given under S. 17 India Contract Act, should not be applied to any activity of Hindu Marriage solemnized under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and to intiated activities under any sections between S. 9 till S. 13 B HMA otherwise till date atleast one authority in India I would have quoted and I throw open same challenge to you too who is more or less relying on [Re. K.D. Sharma Vs. SAIL Hon’ble SC to buttress your argumentative skills (take it as a positive comment).

2. Similarly, once Ld. L.M. Singhvi has expressed his opinion that Hindu marriage is not a contract but a sacrament and cannot be put to test under fraud principals and there are various other great minds who say the same and I painfully subscribe to them however HMA Amendment 1976 payed way to change this thinking and fraud has been taken as one of the grounds (limited) to dissolving a marriage but unfortunately not for maintenance related hide and seek activities of either spouse hence the word “some guess work” was preposterously coined by various Jstc’s in various Hon’ble Courts citations.

3. Further, fraudulent misrepresentation should be at the time of marriage and such fraud should reach to the root of that marriage. Thus mere silence or misrepresentation of status and financial conditions, qualifications, character, reputation, habits, health, origin, social status chastity etc. allegations does not amount to fraud within the meaning of this sub section [S. 12 1 (c ) of HMA]. But these views were expressed before the Marriage Amendment Act, 1976 and these support the traditionalist ideology of society (Hon’ble Jstc’s delivering Justice are part and parcel of the same society is it not so, so each act of omission and commission will flood the ceilings of Court and a cautious approach is adopted which is un-spoken Rule of the Hon’ble Court handling delicate civil disputes such as family law matters).


These asked arguments are very very lengthy with cross reference to atleast 14 authorities that I am aware of and I have mentioned only the silent opinions for quick digestion purpose and kindly don’t mention big letters if asking a opinion from me as I can still read writings on the wall without a rainbow glasses…………..


However, no harm putting your best arguments before the Bench and lastly once again all the best and I close my opinions on asked questions and others may give their comments as and when they may please.

Damayanti ji,

Let me know if understood your query in right direction.

This is divorce case right!!! (all your posts about divorce)

'Fraud on court' is a gravest charge in the doctrine of equity,  than 'lack of due diligence'.

One is intensional mischief and hence guilty is thrown out summarily, and other  may be a negligence in few cases!!

But so called cuprit ..........or a husband.....................is respondent in both proceedings!!

'fraud on court' is more severe when it is committed by a petitioner...............rather than by respondent (it is severe but with affirmative defense is there).......unless respondent lied on oath or on orders made by court 'for discovery' or 'to prove something by way of affidavit'...........if petitioner commits a 'fraud on court' will petitioner be left with affirmative defense laterwards?....absolutely no....

why it is more severe?....E.g. Bhagvan se kuchhh mangoge ke 'muze amir banao' ...aur bhagwan ko hi khota sikka chadhaoge?

In criminal law, defense has right to remain silent!!! Or even take back there statement made under pressure!!!

Petitioner shouldn't commit any breach of equitable doctrince .........................  if reaching to 'court of equity' for a relief!

Unless you had pressed for production of docs/admit facts formally to respondent..don't expect respondent to tell complete truth...did you ask him formally by way of notice that ....E.g. produce a,b,c category of income of yours.....taxable or non taxable....and has he subsequently given a false information after court order him to take a clear stand !!!!

 then he is liable to face the music....

A Similar Example (although very routince case but unfortunately husbands lose out in such cases)............

Petitioner wife...asks for maint...but conceals her income and pleads' very needy and without sufficient means' in front of court, and if husband challenges it in 'review' or 'writ' at HC.....then if wife takes a plea of 'due diligence ' against husband then wife is a suspect.

Here husband becomes applicant and wife becomes non-applicant.

In your case................you are applicant in both the proceedings....i.e. prev. proceedings as well your 'review' app...so you should require very materila proofs. Also keep ready cogent reasons against 'due diligence' defense against you.

Best luck.