On January 2, a single-judge bench of the Karnataka High Court chaired by Justice M. Nagaprasanna ruled that the remarriage of the former husband could not be used as a justification for contesting the agreement the couple reached after their issues were resolved in court and a divorce decree was granted.
The court denied a plea brought by Lata Choodiah to set aside the settlement she and her ex-husband reached on July 8, 2015, in accordance with Section 89 of the Civil Procedure Code and Rules 24 and 25 of the Karnataka Civil Procedure (Mediation) Rules, 2005.
The bench stated: "Once the issue is settled before the Court and after the Court records settlement of parties, the petitioner cannot be seen to call into question the settlement itself on any ground other than it being a fraud." The respondent remarried after the issue was settled before the Court.
The woman was also reprimanded by the court for misusing every legal system and accusing her ex-husband of remarrying after their divorce. It said, but stopped short of charging the woman, “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.”
The bench remarked that after reviewing the documents, the marital proceedings, and the couple's settlement “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
Read the complete judgment on the following link:-
Website designed, developed and maintained by webexy