Drafting and Pleading
Clever drafting—Judicial approach—Courts are ordinarily reluctant to entertain petitions where ingenious or clever drafting is employed as a device to circumvent statutory provisions or to secure a relief that is otherwise not available in law—Judicial process cannot be permitted to be misused by artful pleadings which, in form, appear to be legally sustainable but, in substance, are designed to achieve an outcome that the law expressly prohibits or does not recognize—Justice must be founded on substance rather than form, and that litigants cannot, by disguising the true nature of their claim through skilful language or stratagem, invite the court to grant what the statute itself denies—To allow such petitions would not only undermine the legislative intent but also erode the sanctity of judicial proceedings by rewarding ingenuity over legality.
[Para 28 & 29]
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Section 7—Dismissal of joint petition seeking declaration of marriage as null and void for non-performance of ceremonies under Sec. 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act—Appeal—No petition under any provision of the HMA is maintainable solely on ground that requirements of Sec. 7 of the Act have not been fulfilled, jointly or otherwise—Provisions of the HMA particularly those concerning declarations of nullity, voidable marriages, divorce, and judicial separation, must be strictly construed and applied—Presumption of a valid marriage is not weakened merely due to the absence of direct evidence proving that the Saptapadi was performed—Family Court rightly held that petition was not maintainable—Even assuming the petition to be maintainable, the same was barred by the principle of estoppels—Appeal dismissed.
[Paras 20, 21, 43, 49 & 52]
Sections 7, 11, 12 & 13—Dismissal of joint petition seeking declaration of marriage as null and void for non-performance of ceremonies under Sec. 7 of the HMA—Appeal—Statutory scheme of the HMA only provides reliefs in the form of a declaration of a marriage as being “void”, decree of annulment as being voidable on the grounds mentioned in Section 12 or a decree of dissolution on the grounds set out in Section 13(1) or (2) or a decree by mutual consent under Section 13B of the HMA as also for a decree of “judicial separation” only if there is an existing solemnised marriage—Since the HMA does not provide for a remedy where the case set up is that no valid marriage ever came into existence owing to non-fulfilment of Section 7 requirements, the parties cannot invoke the jurisdiction of courts under the HMA to seek such relief—Such a petition was not even maintainable before the Family Court—Appeal dismissed.
[Paras 14 to 17]