Former Husband’s Remarriage Not A Ground To Question Settlement Arrived Earlier For Divorce: Karnataka High Court

A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna dismissed a petition filed by one Lata Choodiah seeking to set aside the memorandum of settlement arrived at under Section 89 of the Civil Procedure Code read with Rules 24 and 25 of the Karnataka Civil Procedure (Mediation) Rules, 2005 – the settlement was entered into on 07-08-2015 between her and her former husband.

The bench observed: “Once the issue is settled before the Court and after the Court recording settlement of parties, merely because the respondent remarries, the petitioner cannot be seen to call in question the settlement itself on whatsoever ground except, it being a fraud.”

The court also admonished the woman for abusing every jurisdiction and filing complaints against the former husband after he remarried on being divorced. It stopped short of imposing cost on the woman saying, “this Court is holding its hands in the peculiar facts of this case, as the petitioner was a wife whose marriage has been annulled albeit on a consent and imposition of costs would add to the agony.”

Case Details

The petitioner and the respondent got married on 13-08-2006. Later in 2013, the respondent instituted proceedings for annulment of marriage under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The trial Court referred the matter to mediation on the request made by the parties on 06-07-2015.

The parties arrived at a memorandum of settlement on 07-08-2015. In terms of the memorandum of settlement, the annulment of marriage or separation was agreed to between the parties and a sum of Rs. 30,00,000, was to be paid by the respondent as permanent alimony in full and final settlement for such annulment.

Based upon the said settlement arrived, the court before which the proceedings were pending drew up a decree in terms of the said memorandum of settlement and annulment of marriage happened thereafter. While doing so, the Court permitted amendment to be carried in the plaint.

The man later married another lady and started to live with the second wife. It is then the petitioner, who was the former wife, "began to create problems" for him by registering a complaint before the jurisdictional police and also threatening him with dire consequences.

The man then approached the civil court seeking permanent restraint upon his former wife from trespassing into his residence. The permanent injunction was granted by the civil Court.

The woman then instituted proceedings before the Karnataka State Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes Commission, Bangalore making certain allegations. Those proceedings were also challenged before the High Court and a stay of the proceedings was granted.

Besides filing a criminal case against him, the woman then filed the writ petition calling in question the memorandum of settlement and the decree that was drawn up.

Findings

The bench on going through the records and the matrimonial proceedings and settlement between the couple, noted that “Clause 4 of the settlement reads about the agreement between the parties for permanent alimony to be given to the wife at Rs.30,00,000/- and a demand draft was to be handed over to the petitioner. It was also undertaken that the parties would not interfere with the lives of each other in future.”

Rejecting the contention of the woman that the settlement before the mediation was arrived at by misleading or by force, the bench referred to the order sheet of the family court and said “Both parties and their counsel were present before the Court and mediation report was placed. On enquiry by the Court both parties stated that the mediation report is known to them and agreed that the Court may record the same and proceed further. Rs.30,00,000/- DD was also acknowledged by the petitioner before the Court. It is then the Court draws up the decree.”

Then referring to the several proceedings initiated by the petitioner the bench said: “Merely because the respondent re-marries the petitioner cannot be seen to call in question the settlement itself on whatsoever ground except, it being a fraud. I do not see any demonstration of fraud in the entire petition.”

Accordingly it dismissed the petition.

Case Title: Latha Choodiah v. Sree Balaji H.

Case No: WRIT PETITION No.11172 OF 2019

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 4

Date of Order: 02-01-2023

Appearance: Advocate Ravi R for petitioner.

Advocate Suyog Herele E for respondent.