Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 — Sections 3 & 7(3) — Registration of FIR — Where husband, on basis of statements made by wife and her family members in complaint and under Section 161 CrPC alleging giving of dowry, sought prosecution of them for offence under Section 3, such persons being “aggrieved” are protected by statutory bar under Section 7(3), and their own statements cannot be used as foundation to prosecute them for giving dowry — In absence of independent material, no offence is made out — Refusal to direct registration of FIR justified — Petition dismissed. (Paras 13, 20, 21)

 APEX COURT HELD THAT 

Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 — Sections 3 & 7(3) — Registration of FIR — Where husband, on basis of statements made by wife and her family members in complaint and under Section 161 CrPC alleging giving of dowry, sought prosecution of them for offence under Section 3, such persons being “aggrieved” are protected by statutory bar under Section 7(3), and their own statements cannot be used as foundation to prosecute them for giving dowry — In absence of independent material, no offence is made out — Refusal to direct registration of FIR justified — Petition dismissed.
(Paras 13, 20, 21)

Constitution of India — Article 142 — Dissolution of marriage — Irretrievable breakdown — Multiplicity of vexatious proceedings — Where parties were embroiled in prolonged matrimonial litigation, respondent-husband indulged in filing numerous vindictive and oppressive proceedings including against wife, her relatives and advocates, and wilfully defaulted in payment of maintenance, such conduct coupled with long separation establishes that marriage is dead and beyond repair — In exercise of powers under Article 142, Supreme Court dissolved marriage, quashed all pending civil and criminal proceedings inter se parties and their relatives, granted custody of children to wife with visitation rights to husband, and awarded consolidated permanent alimony of Rs.5 crores to secure future of wife and children — Appeal disposed of with comprehensive directions to give complete quietus to dispute. (Paras 53 to 62)

 APEX COURT HELD THAT 

Constitution of India — Article 142 — Dissolution of marriage — Irretrievable breakdown — Multiplicity of vexatious proceedings — Where parties were embroiled in prolonged matrimonial litigation, respondent-husband indulged in filing numerous vindictive and oppressive proceedings including against wife, her relatives and advocates, and wilfully defaulted in payment of maintenance, such conduct coupled with long separation establishes that marriage is dead and beyond repair — In exercise of powers under Article 142, Supreme Court dissolved marriage, quashed all pending civil and criminal proceedings inter se parties and their relatives, granted custody of children to wife with visitation rights to husband, and awarded consolidated permanent alimony of Rs.5 crores to secure future of wife and children — Appeal disposed of with comprehensive directions to give complete quietus to dispute.
(Paras 53 to 62)

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Sections 13(1)(ia) & (ib) — Divorce — Where wife habitually quarrelled on trivial issues, used abusive language towards husband and his parents, prior undertaking given to maintain cordial conduct, and children refused to reside with her, such conduct amounts to mental cruelty and desertion — Concurrent findings of Courts below based on evidence — No perversity shown — No interference warranted — Long separation further indicates breakdown of marriage — Divorce affirmed with modification of maintenance. (Paras 5 to 11)

 APEX COURT HELD THAT 

 Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Sections 13(1)(ia) & (ib) — Divorce — Where wife habitually quarrelled on trivial issues, used abusive language towards husband and his parents, prior undertaking given to maintain cordial conduct, and children refused to reside with her, such conduct amounts to mental cruelty and desertion — Concurrent findings of Courts below based on evidence — No perversity shown — No interference warranted — Long separation further indicates breakdown of marriage — Divorce affirmed with modification of maintenance.

(Paras 5 to 11)

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN: Domestic Violence Act, 2005 — Section 12 — Settlem...

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN: Domestic Violence Act, 2005 — Section 12 — Settlem...: advocatemmmohan APEX COOURT HELD THAT  Domestic Violence Act, 2005 — Section 12 — Settlement agreement in mediation — Quashing of proceeding...

APEX COURT HELD THAT 

Domestic Violence Act, 2005 — Section 12 — Settlement agreement in mediation — Quashing of proceedings — Withdrawal of consent for mutual divorce — Where parties entered into mediated settlement resolving all disputes and partly acted upon it, subsequent initiation of DV proceedings by wife after resiling from settlement, without specific allegations of domestic violence, amounts to abuse of process — Party cannot resile from settlement except on proof of fraud, coercion or non-fulfilment of agreed conditions — Continuation of DV proceedings in such circumstances is unsustainable — Supreme Court in exercise of Article 142 also dissolved marriage on ground of irretrievable breakdown and enforced settlement terms — Proceedings quashed and appeal allowed.

(Paras 29 to 41, 51 to 55)

Order XLI Rule 25 — Additional issues in appeal — Scope (Paras 3, 13) Framing of additional issues at the appellate stage is not automatic. Where the matters sought to be raised are already covered by existing issues or have been substantially adjudicated by the trial Court, the appellate Court is justified in refusing to frame additional issues. LIMITATION — Section 3 Limitation Act — Mandatory duty of Court (Paras 10, 12) Section 3 of the Limitation Act imposes a mandatory obligation on the Court to consider limitation suo motu. Even in the absence of a specific plea or framed issue, the Court must examine whether the suit is barred by limitation.

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 — Order XLI Rule 25 — Additional issues in appeal — Scope (Paras 3, 13)

Framing of additional issues at the appellate stage is not automatic. Where the matters sought to be raised are already covered by existing issues or have been substantially adjudicated by the trial Court, the appellate Court is justified in refusing to frame additional issues.

---

LIMITATION — Section 3 Limitation Act — Mandatory duty of Court (Paras 10, 12)

Section 3 of the Limitation Act imposes a mandatory obligation on the Court to consider limitation suo motu. Even in the absence of a specific plea or framed issue, the Court must examine whether the suit is barred by limitation.

---

LIMITATION — Non-framing of issue — Effect (Paras 10, 11, 12)

Failure to frame a specific issue on limitation does not vitiate the proceedings if the Court has otherwise considered and decided the question of limitation. Formal framing of an issue is not indispensable where the matter has been adjudicated.

---

LIMITATION — Nature — Mixed question of fact and law (Paras 8, 11)

Limitation is ordinarily a mixed question of fact and law and cannot be decided as a preliminary issue unless it is evident from the plaint itself. Such issues require adjudication based on evidence.

---

FRAMING OF ISSUES — Duty of Court — Proper scrutiny (Paras 9, 11)

Trial Courts are required to carefully scrutinize pleadings and frame appropriate issues. However, omission to frame a specific issue does not automatically necessitate remand or framing of additional issues if the substance of the controversy has been addressed.

---

APPELLATE COURT — Duty — Independent consideration (Paras 12, 13)

The appellate Court is duty-bound to independently consider all material issues, including limitation, irrespective of whether separate issues were framed by the trial Court.

---

ORDER XIV RULE 2 CPC — Preliminary issue — Limitation (Para 8)

Only pure questions of law relating to jurisdiction or statutory bar can be tried as preliminary issues. Limitation, being a mixed question of fact and law, generally cannot be decided as a preliminary issue.

---

REVISION — Article 227 — Interference — Limits (Para 13)

Where the appellate Court has exercised its discretion judiciously and no jurisdictional error or perversity is shown, the High Court will not interfere under Article 227.

---

FINAL RESULT (Para 14)

Civil Revision Petition dismissed — Refusal to frame additional issues upheld — No costs.