SUNIL versus SAKSHI @ SHWETA & ANR.

Citation: [2015] 1 S.C.R. 700 · Decided: 14-01-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. J. MUKHOPADHAYA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2015] 1 S.C.R. 700 
SUNIL 
v. 
SAKSHI @ SHWETA & ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 415 of 2015) 
JANUARY 14, 2015 
[SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA AND 
N.V. RAMANA, JJ.] 
Family law: Divorce petition by appellant-husband -
C Respondent-wife proceeded ex parte - Ex parte order set 
aside and case adjourned for conciliation - Next hearing, wife 
again remained absent- Divorce decree - Challenged by wife 
in High Court on the ground that the divorce decree was 
obtained by husband by playing fraud on court and she never 
D appeared before the court nor she had knowledge about the 
case filed by husband - Family Court order sheet dated 
17. 9. 2012 showed the presence of appellant-husband and 
wife - High Court framed the question as to whether the 
impugned judgment and decree called for interference - High 
E Court doubted the filing of the Vakalatnama signed by the wife 
with her affidavit and in view of such doubt, set aside the 
divorce decree - Held: No question as to whether the 
appellant-husband played fraud on the Family Court and 
obtained the decree of dissolution of marriage was framed by 
F the High Court - There was a disputed question of fact f!S 
apparent from the Family Court order dated 17.9.2012 
wherein the Court recorded the presence of both the parties 
and after hearing their arguments, set aside the ex parte order 
and put forth the matter for conciliation - High Court failed to 
G notice that it was a case in which there was a disputed question 
of fact which cannot be decided without framing a proper issue 
and in absence of evidence on record - Finding of High Cowt 
was not based on evidence but on mere presumption and 
conjecture - Impugned order is set aside. 
H 
700 
SUNIL v. SAKSHI @ SHWETA & ANR 
701 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The High Court exceeded its jurisdiction 
and recorded its finding on presumption, surmises and 
conjectures. The High Court giving reference to the plaint 
and the written statement presumed that 1st respondent-
wife never appeared before the Family Court and failed 
to notice order dated 17th September, 2012 which made 
it clear that 1st respondent-wife, who was the respondent 
A 
B 
in the said case, was present in the court and one Shri 
8.M. Chougale, Advocate filed Vakalatnama for her with 
C 
permission. It cannot be presumed that the Family Court 
in its order dated 17th September, 2012 wrongly noted 
the presence of the appellant-husband and the 1st 
respondent-wife. In fact, this part of the order sheet was 
not referred by the High Court while coming to a 
conclusion that the appellant-husband has played fraud 
upon the Family Court as to get a decree of divorce in 
his favour. Merely, because of the fact that print out of the 
case papers of both the parties have been taken from one 
and the same computer software it cannot be presumed 
that blank Vakalatnama signed by the 1st respondent-
wife was misused by the appellant-husband or he played 
fraud and used the same to engage some other senior 
counsel. Such finding of the High Court was not based 
on evidence but on mere .presumption and conjecture. 
The impugned judgment is set aside. [Paras 12, 16 to 18] 
[706-E; 707-F-H; 708-E-G] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 415 
of 2015. 
D 
E 
F 
From the Judgment and Order dated 09.07.2014 of the 
G 
High Court of Karnataka Bench at Dharwad in MFA No. 22031 
of 2013. 
K. Raghavacharyulu, Devadatt Kamat, Rajesh leramdar, 
Gautam Talukdar for the Appellant. 
H 
702 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 1 S.C.R. 
A 
S. S. Javali, F. S. Patil, Ananta Narayan, Ankolekar 
Gurudatta, Anitha Shenoy for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by. 
SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J. 1. Leave 
B granted. 
2. This appeal ha·s been preferred by the appellant-
husband against the judgment dated 9th July, 2014 passed by 
the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad 
c Bench in M.F.A. No.22031/2013(FC). By the impugned 
judgment the High Court while allowing the appeal preferred by 
the 1st respondent-wife, set aside the decree passed by the 
Family Court, Belgaum by imposing costs of Rs.25,000/-on the 
appellant-husband and directed the Family Court to lodge a 
D complaint through Sheristedar of the Court with the 
jurisdictional Police against the appellant-husband for the 
offences punishable under Sections 193, 417,419, 426, 
464,465 and 468 of IPC. 
3. The factual matrix of the case leading to the filing of the 
E present ap
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.