Allowed

Radhika Ramachandran v. K.T.Latheesh

Kerala HC22 Nov 2012Mat.Appeal/714/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appeal against the Family Court's dismissal of a petition declaring the marriage null and void due to fraud. The Court set aside the lower decision, finding the petitioner's evidence regarding the fraud's discovery convincing and holding the marriage void despite the limitation argument raised below.

What did the court decide?

Impugned judgment and decree set aside; marriage declared null and void; parties directed to comply with existing compromise decrees.

Radhika Ramachandran Vs K.T.Latheesh — Matrimonial and Divorce | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE

¶4

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH

¶6

THURSDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2012/1ST AGRAHAYANA 1934

¶7

Mat.Appeal.No. 714 of 2010 ( )

¶8

-----------------------------JUDGMENT AND DECREE IN OP.552/2006 of FAMILY COURT, KANNUR

¶9

APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

¶10

RADHIKA RAMACHANDRAN, AGED 36 YEARS, D/O.LATE M.RAMACHANDRAN,RESIDING AT KANNAN VILLA, TALAP,KANNUR.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.S.SUBHASH CHAND

¶12

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:

¶13

K.T.LATHEESH, AGED 41 YEARS, S/O.LAKSHMANAN,RESIDING AT SAI SADAN,PALLIKKUNNU, KANNUR-4.

¶14

BY ADV. SRI.V.RAMKUMAR NAMBIAR

¶15

THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22-112012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH, JJ.

¶17

MAT. APPEAL NO.714 OF 2010

¶18

Dated this the 22^nd day of November, 2012

¶19

Judgment

¶20

Pius C. Kuriakose, J.

¶21

Under challenge in this appeal preferred by the wife is the judgment of the Family Court, Kannur dismissing the application filed by the appellant under Section 12(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act for a declaration that the marriage between her and the respondent is null and void.

¶22

The facts of the case are as follows:

¶23

The allegation of the appellant was that the respondent had represented to her and made her believe at the time when negotiations were being held prior to the marriage that he is an engineering graduate while he did not have a degree in engineering at all. This fraud which was perpetrated by the respondent on the appellant and her family members was discovered by her and her people only on 25.7.2006 when there was a mediation talk in her house in which apart from the respondent, A.W.2 and A.W.3, the brother and the brother's

¶24

Mat.A.714/10

¶25

¶26

friend respectively of the appellant also participated. During the course of such mediation talks, A.W.2 told the respondent that he will secure for him a job in Dubai as he was presently unemployed and requested that either the original degree certificate or an attested copy thereof be given. It was at that juncture that the respondent confessed that he did not have a degree in engineering. This revelation came as shock to the petitioner. In the statement of objections filed before the Family Court the respondent denied the mediation talks and the revelation on 25.7.2006.

¶27

On the side of the petitioner, herself was examined as A.W.1 and her brother and brother's friend were examined as A.W.2 and A.W.3 respectively. On the side of the respondent, he got himself examined as R.W.1.

¶28

The learned Judge of the Family Court on appreciating the evidence adduced by the parties would come to the conclusion that the appellant's case that the fact that the respondent did not have a degree in engineering was discovered by her only on 25.7.2006 is highly improbable. To come to such a conclusion, the learned Judge has relied on the evidence given by

¶29

Mat.A.714/10

¶30

¶31

A.W.1 that even from the very beginning she was having doubts regarding the academic qualifications of the respondent. A.W.3 was disbelieved for the reason that he is a close friend of A.W.2. A.W.2 was disbelieved on the basis of certain answers given by him to certain questions put by the court indicating that he is a law graduate and that the purpose of his giving evidence was to prove that the Original Petition is filed within one year of the accrual of cause of action. Coming to the important question whether the consent of the appellant was obtained by playing fraud, the learned Judge found in favour of the petitioner. Nevertheless on the finding that the Original Petition is filed beyond one year of the discovery of the fraud, relief was declined to the appellant. In this appeal, various grounds are raised challenging the finding of the learned Judge of the Family Court that the Original Petition was liable to be dismissed in view of Section 12(2)(a)(i) of the Act.

¶32

We have heard the submissions of Mr.S.Subhash Chand, learned counsel for the appellant and those of Mr.V.Ramkumar Nambiar, learned counsel for the respondent. While Mr.Subhash Chand addressed submissions based on the grounds raised in the

¶33

Mat.A.714/10

¶34

¶35

memorandum of appeal, Mr.V.Ramkumar Nambiar would support the impugned judgment on the basis of the reasons assigned by the learned Judge of the Family Court for its findings. We have made a de novo reappraisal of the evidence on record, particularly the oral evidence adduced by A.Ws.1 to 3 and R.W.1.

¶36

The question that arises for decision by us is whether appreciation of the evidence adduced by the parties by the learned Judge of the Family Court was proper and whether the finding that the Original Petition is instituted more than one year after after the fraud was discovered is correct?

¶37

As already indicated, the court below did find that a fraud was played on the appellant by the respondent in the matter of obtaining the appellant's consent to the marriage. It was clearly found that the fact that the respondent does not hold a degree in engineering was suppressed and the respondent held himself out to be an engineering graduate. Relief was declined to the appellant only on the question of limitation. The oral evidence given by A.W.1, the appellant is quite convincing. A.W.2 is the brother of the appellant and hence, natural witness to the mediation talks in the family over the disputes between his sister

¶38

Mat.A.714/10

¶39

¶40

and the respondent. Just because he is a law graduate and his evidence revealed that he was aware of the implications of the law of limitation in the matter, the court below should not have disbelieved him. A.W.3 is a close friend of A.W.2 and a family friend also. He was disbelieved for the reason that he is a friend of A.W.2 and hence interested in the case of the appellant who is the sister of A.W.2. Interestingly, in his cross examination, it is

¶41

not suggested to him that he was giving false evidence. According to us, the evidence adduced on the side of the appellant inspires much more confidence in the mind of any conscientious court than the evidence of the respondent. The respondent cannot boast of much credibility in the teeth of his own admission that he suppressed the fact that he had not taken a degree in engineering even from his own parents.

¶42

The result of the above discussion is that the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment and decree are set aside. It is declared that the marriage between the appellant and the respondent is null and void. The parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.

¶43

It is brought to our notice that the other disputes

¶44

Mat.A.714/10

¶45

¶46

between the parties regarding maintenance, custody of children etc. have been settled by the decrees passed on the basis of the compromise arrived at between the parties. Both parties are directed to comply with the terms of those decrees without fail.

¶47

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE.

¶48

BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, JUDGE.

¶49

srd

¶50

Mat.A.714/10 7

¶51

Mat.A.714/10 8

Radhika Ramachandran v. K.T.Latheesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Radhika Ramachandran v. K.T.Latheesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jasmine Vs Kunhumon P.V.K

Sainudeen Vs Rehana

Smitha Thomas Vs Biju Varghese

C.v.George Vs Mini Joseph @ Rose

C.P.Joseph Vs Geemol

Parameswaran Pillai Vs the Deputy Superintendent of Police