‘Such law does not exist’: Allahabad High Court sets aside divorce decree after judge cites fictitious Act

Non-existent law

The husband argued before the high court that the family court committed a glaring error by entertaining and deciding the suit under a statute that does not exist.

The court found that the plaint itself was filed under the provisions of the non-existent ‘Muslim Women Marriage Dissolution Act, 1986’.

Looking at the year of the Act (1986), the Allahabad High Court remarked that the plaint was apparently meant to be filed under the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, which is a law that was brought out for the protection of divorced Muslim women, concerning their assets and rights.

It added that the woman’s case was for dissolution of her marriage, which should have been filed under the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939.

The bench noted that merely citing a wrong provision in a plaint would not automatically invalidate a judgment, so long as the court exercises jurisdiction under an existing law and correctly applies it in the final decision.

“It is trite law that merely because a wrong provision or a wrong act has been mentioned in a plaint, that by itself would not render a final judgment invalid. As long as the Trial Court had the authority under an existing law and that existing law is correctly mentioned in the judgment. Merely because the wrong act or the wrong provision of law was mentioned in the plaint, would not invalidate the final order,” the court said.

Casual judgment

• The Allahabad High Court pointed out that the family court not only reproduced the erroneous statutory reference from the plaint but also repeatedly referred to the same non-existent law throughout the judgment.
• After giving the cause title, the trial court recorded that the decision was passed under the Muslim Women Marriage Dissolution Act, 1986, the court pointed out.
• According to the Allahabad High Court, the most unfortunate part of the judgment was that the family court held that the wife’s case was liable to be allowed in part, as per the provisions of the non-existent Muslim Women Marriage Dissolution Act, 1986.
• In a strong observation, it remarked that the family court, presided over by a senior district judge, was rather casual in its judgment.
• It is for the court to ensure that the statute referred to by it actually exists, merely an error in the plaint or the proceedings does not justify the trial court repeating the same error in the final judgment, the high court said.
• The bench stressed that had the mistake been an isolated typographical error in an innocuous part of the judgment, it may have been ignored. But repeated reliance on a non-existent law, particularly as the basis for granting relief, rendered the judgment “bad in law and facts.”
• Accordingly, the Allahabad High Court set aside the family court’s order and remanded the matter back to it for fresh adjudication under the correct provisions of law.