- News>
- India
None would be permitted to undermine the dignity of court: HC
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.
Madurai: 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.