Court No. - 44
Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 795 of 2021 Appellant :- Smt. Riya Singh Respondent :- Mritunjay Kumar Singh Counsel for Appellant :- Ghanshyam Das Mishra,Vindhyachal Singh
Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.
The present appeal has been filed by the wife challenging the order dated 22.2.2021 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court Ballia on the Recall Application Paper No. 12 Ga filed in Case No. 446 of 2015 as also the judgment and decree dated 14.5.2016 passed by the family court in the aforesaid case under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act. The Paper No. 12 Ga had been filed by wife in the year 2020 with the assertion that respondent husband had obtained the decree of divorce by mutual consent by playing fraud upon her. She had been misguided by the respondent regarding the draft of Rs. 5,00,000/- which was given to her on the date of hearing, on 14.5.2016. It is contended that the respondent had handed over the said draft to the appellant on the premise that he had purchased land in the name of the wife and Rs. 5,00,000/- had to be paid by the wife to the vendor, of the land.
The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that all the assertions made by the wife showing that a fraud had been committed upon her for getting a decree of divorce by mutual consent had not been addressed by the Family Court, in the order impugned. The wife is a permanent resident of Buxar in the State of Bihar and there was no occasion of her to remain present in the Court at Ballia on the date fixed, i.e, 14.5.2016.
Considering the said submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant and the material on record, it is evident that the petition under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act was instituted on 13.09.2015 and was pending when the Lok Adalat was organised. The date fixed in the said petition was 15.5.2016. On an application moved by both the parties, the competent Court had preponed the date for taking up the matter on 14.5.2016 in the Lok Adalat. The order sheet appended at page No. '43-44' of the paper book clearly indicates that on the date fixed i.e., 14.5.2016, the appellant wife had appeared before the Court of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Baliya . Her signature is found place on the margin of the order sheet dated 14.5.2016 wherein it is recorded that a Bank draft No. 99863958 for an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- had been received by the appellant wife. There is no denial of the signature of the appellant in the order sheet of the Lok Adalat. There is no denial of the receipt of the Bank draft by the appellant on the said date. Rather the contention of the appellant is that she was misdirected or misguided by the respondent husband while handing over the bank draft and her signature was obtained by misguiding her. The appellant is taking contradictory pleas. On the one hand, she says that she could not be present in the Court at Ballia on the date fixed and on the other side, that the Bank draft was received by her on some wrong impression.
We may further note that in the proceedings before the Lok Adalat on 14.5.2016, the statements of both the appellant and the respondent had been recorded. In the judgement and order dated 14.5.2016 while passing the decree of divorce by mutual consent under Section 13-B, the statements of both the parties ( wife and husband) has been reproduced.
There cannot, thus, be any doubt about the facts that the appellant was present in the Court and had received a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- through the bank draft. The findings of the Family Court, 5,00,000/- had paid to the appellant towards permanent alimony, thus, is evident from the record.
The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that a fraud has been committed by the respondent in getting a decree of divorce by mutual consent, therefore, cannot be entertained.
In view of Section 19(2) of the Family Courts Act, the present appeal seeking to challenge the consent decree cannot be entertained. We may record that the decree passed by the permanent Lok Adalat is a decree of the Civil Court in view of Section 21(2) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987.
For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit in the appeal. The same is dismissed at the admission stage itself.
Order Date :- 27.10.2021 SY