None would be permitted to undermine the dignity of court: HC

Image
Press Trust of India Madurai
Last Updated : Jun 23 2015 | 11:07 PM IST
The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court today warned that no one would be permitted to undermine the dignity of the court and interfere with the due course of judicial proceedings or administration of justice by filing false affidavit or misleading the court.
Justice S Vaidhyanathan, dismissing a petition by one S Christ Adaikala Sagaya Lousia seeking a direction to give the family pension of her deceased husband, as the divorce decree got by her husband was ex-party decree and she was not aware of it, said a perusal of the divorce decree and other documents showed that the divorce application had been filed by her only, and she had misled the court.
The Judge rejected the contention of the petitioner that the divorce decree in respect of her name and the consent decree obtained belonged to some other person.
"It is true that Lousia's name had been wrongly typed as Lourisa. It is a typographical error. Because of such a small mistake, it cannot be said that the entire divorce decree granted by the trial court was invalid in law and the petitioner could not seek terminal benefits."
The Judge further observed that even though the petitioner said that she had produced legal heir certificate in which her name had been found, it was being issued by the competent authority based on inquiry and statements made by the concerned persons, whereas judgement and decree was passed by competent court after hearing the necessary party.
The petitioner had filed the divorce against her husband and that he was ex-party pursuant to his non appearance and the said petition was allowed by a judgement and decree dissolving their marriage.
"If this petition was allowed it would set a bad precedent and there was every possibility of similarly placed divorce women to knock at the doors of the court,the Judge said dimissing the petition. This was a fit case for cost as the petitioner had misled the court. But considering the fact that the petitioner was a divorcee, the court refrained from imposing cost.
*Subscribe to Business Standard digital and get complimentary access to The New York Times

Smart Quarterly

₹900

3 Months

₹300/Month

SAVE 25%

Smart Essential

₹2,700

1 Year

₹225/Month

SAVE 46%
*Complimentary New York Times access for the 2nd year will be given after 12 months

Super Saver

₹3,900

2 Years

₹162/Month

Subscribe

Renews automatically, cancel anytime

Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans

Exclusive premium stories online

  • Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors

Complimentary Access to The New York Times

  • News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic

Business Standard Epaper

  • Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share

Curated Newsletters

  • Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox

Market Analysis & Investment Insights

  • In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor

Archives

  • Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997

Ad-free Reading

  • Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements

Seamless Access Across All Devices

  • Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app

More From This Section

First Published: Jun 23 2015 | 11:07 PM IST

Next Story