[2011) 10 S.C.R. 557

INDERJIT SINGH GREWAL v.

STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR. (Criminal Appeal No. 1635 of 2011)

AUGUST 23, 2011

[P. SATHASIVAM AND DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, JJ.]

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 482 - Parties obtained decree of divorce by mutual consent - Complaint filed by wife before the police under the Protection of Women c from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 that the divorce decree was sham - Subsequently, criminal complaint also filed under the 2005 Act before another district - Meanwhile husband filed an application u/s. 482 Cr. P. C. for quashing the complaint - Subsequently, wife filed a civil suit for declaration 0 that decree for divorce was null and void as it was obtained by fraud - During pendency, application by wife for grant of custody of minor child as also FIR lodged ulss. 406, 376 and 120-B /PC - 'Application filed uls. 482 for quashing the complaint dismissed by the High Court - On appeal, held: E Wife herself had been a party to the alleged fraud committed by the husband upon the civil court for getting the decree of divorce and asked the criminal court to sit in appeal against the judgment and decree of the competent civil court - Complaint was filed before the Magistrate, Jalandhar while the decree of divorce had been granted by the District Judge, Ludhiana i.e. of another district - It cannot be understood as under what circumstances a subordinate criminal court can sit in appeal against the judgment and order of the superior civil court, having a different territorial jurisdiction - Decree

of civil court for divorce stiff subsists - Suit to declare the said G judgment and decree as a nullity is still pending consideration before the competent court - Permitting the Magistrate to proceed further with the complaint under the 2005 Act is not compatible and in consonance with the decree of divorce 557 H

A which still subsists - It amounts to abuse of the process of the court - Impugned judgment and order is set aside - Complaint pending befo1e the Magistrate, Jalandhar and all orders passed therein are quashed - Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

Judgment/Order - Order obtained by making misrepresentation or playing fraud upon the competent authority - Sustainability of - Held: Such order cannot be sustained in the eyes of the law as fraud unravels everything

- Fraud and justice never dwell together.

Judgment/Order- Setting aside of an order/decree, even if void or void ab initio - Held: Declaration has to be obtained from the competent court - It cannot be obtained in collateral proceedings.

Word and Phrases - Fraud - Meaning of.

Maxims - Al/egans suam turpetudinem non est audiendus - Held: Person alleging his own infamy cannot be heard at any forum.

The marriage of appellant-husband and respondent E No. 2-wife was dissolved by mutual consent. Thereafter, respondent No. 2 filed a complaint before the police against the appellant under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 alleging that the decree of divorce obtained by them was a sham transaction F since even after divorce, both of them had been living

together as husband and wife. In the enquiry conducted and the legal opinion sought it was opined that no case was made out against the appellant. Subsequently,

respondent No. 2 filed a complaint under the 2005 Act G and the Magistrate summoned the minor child of the parties for counselling. Aggrieved, the appellant filed an application u/s. 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the said complaint Meanwhile, respondent No. 2 filed a civil suit seeking declaration that the decree for divorce was null H and void as it had been obtained by fraud. During

INDERJIT SINGH GREWAL v. STATE OF PUNJAB & 559

ANR.

pendency of the suit, respondent No. 2 filed an A application for grant of custody and guardianship of the minor child which is pending consideration; and also lodged an FIR u/ss. 406, 376 and 120-B IPC against the appellant and his mother and sister. Thereafter, the High Court dismissed the application filed by the appellant u/ B s. 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the complaint. Therefore, the appellant filed the instant appeal.

Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 Where a person gets an order/office by making misrepresentation or playing fraud upon the C competent authority, such order cannot be sustained in the eyes of the law as fraud unravels everything. "Equity is always known to defend the law from crafty evasions and new subtleties invented to evade law". "Fraud t1nd justice never dwell together" (fraus et jus nunquam D cohabitant). Fraud is an act of deliberate deception with a design to secure something, which is otherwise not due. Fraud and deception are synonymous. "Fraud is an anathema to all equitable principles and any affair tainted with fraud cannot be perpetuated or saved by the E application of any equitable doctrine". An act of fraud on court is always viewed seriously. [Para 11) [570-G-H; 571-

A-B] Meghmala and Ors. v. G. Narasimha Reddy and Ors.

(2010) 8 sec 383: 2010 (10) SCR 47 - relied on.

F 1.2 For setting aside such an order, even if void, the party has to approach the appropriate forum. It is evident that even if a decree is void ab initio, declaration to that effect has to be obtained by the person aggrieved from the competent court. More so, such a declaration cannot G be obtained in collateral proceedings. [Paras 12 and 14]

[571-C-D; 572-C]

State of Kera/a v. M.K. Kunhikannan Nambiar Manjeri Manikoth Naduvil (dead) and Ors. AIR 1996 SC 906: 1995

(6) Suppl. SCR 139; Tayabbhai M. Bagasarwalla and Anr.

A v. Hind Rubber Industries Pvt. Ltd. AIR 1997 SC 1240: 1997

(2) SCR 152 - relied on.

Sultan Sadik v. Sanjay Raj Subba and Ors. AIR 2004 SC 1377: 2004 (1) SCR 82; M. Meenakshi and Ors. v. Metadin Agarwal (dead) by Lrs. and Ors. (2006) 7 SCC 470: 2006 (5) B Suppl. SCR 505; Sneh Gupta v. Devi Sarup and Ors. (2009)

6 SCC 194: 2009 (2) SCR 553 - referred to. 1.3 A person alleging his own infamy cannot be heard at any forum as explained by the legal maxim "al/egans suam turpetudinem non est audiendus". No one C should have an advantage from his own wrong (commondum ex injuria sua memo habere debet). No action arises from an immoral cause (ex turpi cause non oritur action). Damage suffered by consent is not a cause of action (vo/enti non fit injuria). [Para 15] [572-E-F] D 1.4 The offence of abetment is complete when the alleged abettor has instigated another or engaged with another in a conspiracy to commit offence. If more than one person combining both in intent and act, commit an offence jointl)!, each is guilty, as if he has done the whole E act alone. Offence has been defined under Section 40 IPC

and Section 43 IPC defines illegality. Making false statement on oath before the court is an offence under Section 191 IPC and punishable under Section 193 IPC. [Para 16] [572-G-H; 573-A] F Faguna Kanta Nath v. The State of Assam AIR 1959 SC 673: 1959 Suppl. SCR 1; Jamuna Singh v. State of Bihar AIR 1967 SC 553: 1967 SCR 469 - relied on. 2.1 In the instant case, respondent no.2 herself had been a party to the fraud committed by the appellant G upon the civil court for getting the decree of divorce as

alleged by her in the impugned complaint. Thus, according to her own admission she herself is an abettor to the crime and she made herself disentitled for any equitable relief. [Para 15] [572-D-F] H

 INDERJIT SINGH GREWAL v. STATE OF PUNJAB & 561

ANR.

2.2 While granting the decree of divorce, the A statement of respondent no.2 had been recorded in the first as well as in the second motion. Period of more than 6 months was given to her to think over the issue.

However, she made a similar statement in the second motion as well. As per the statutory requirement, the B purpose of second motion after a period of six months is that parties may make further efforts for reconciliation in order to save their marriage. There is also obligation on the part of the court under Section 23(2) of the Act 1955 to make every endeavour to bring about a c reconciliation between the parties. [Paras 17 and 18] [573-

8-C]

Jagraj Singh v. Birpa/ Kaur AIR 2007 SC 2083:2007 (2) SCR 496; Smt. Sureshta Devi v. Om Prakash AIR 1992 SC 1304; Hitesh Bhatnagar v. Deepa Bhatnagar AIR 2011 SC D 1637referred to.

2.3 Respondent no.2, who did not change her stand in the second motion and obtained a sham decree of divorce as alleged by her and asked the criminal court to sit in appeal against the judgment and decree of the E competent civil court. The complaint was filed before the Magistrate, Jalandhar while the decree of divorce had been granted by the District Judge, Ludhiana i.e. of another district. Therefore, it is beyond imagination as under what circumstances a subordinate criminal court F can sit in appeal against the judgment and order of the superior civil court, having a different territorial jurisdiction. [Para 21] [574-G-H; 575-A]

2.4 In the facts and circumstances of the case, the submission made on behalf of respondent No.2 that the G judgment and decree of a civil court granting divorce is

null and void and they continued to be the husband and wife, cannot be taken note of at this stage unless the suit filed by the respondent No.2 to declare the said judgment H

A and decree dated 20.3.2008 is decided in her favour. In

view thereof, the evidence adduced by her particularly the record of the telephone calls, photographs attending a wedding together and her signatures in school diary of the child cannot be taken into consideration so long as B the judgment and decree of the civil court subsists. On

the similar footing, the submission even after the decree of divorce, they continued to live together as husband and wife and therefore, the complaint under the Act 2005 is maintainable, is not worth acceptance at this stage. c [Para 22) [575-B-E]

D. Ve/usamy v. D. Patchaiammal (2010) 10 SCC 469: 2010 (13 ) SCR 706; Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya v. State of Gujarat and Ors. (2005) 3 SCC 636: 2005 (2 ) SCR 638-- Distinguished

Japani Sahoo v. Chandra Sekhar Mohanty AIR 2007 SC 2762: 2007 (8) SCR 582; Noida Entrepreneurs Association

v. Noida and Ors. (2011) 6 SCC 508 - referred to.

2.5 In the instant case, the parties got married and the E decree of civil court for divorce still subsists. More so, a suit to declare the said judgment and decree as a nullity is still pending consideration before the competent court.

Permitting the Magistrate to proceed further with the complaint under the provisions of the Act 2005 is not F compatible and in consonance with the decree of divorce which still subsists and thus, the process amounts to abuse of the process of the court. Undoubtedly, for quashing a complaint, the court has to take its contents on its face value and in case the same discloses an G offence, the court generally does not interfere with the same. However, in the backdrop of the factual matrix of the instant case, permitting the court to proceed with the complaint would be travesty of justic~. Thus, interest of justlc_e __ warrants quashing of the same. [Para 25] [576-D-

H E]

INDERJIT SINGH GREWAL v. STATE OF PUNJAB & 563

ANR.

2.6 The impugned judgment and order is set aside.

A Petition filed by the appellant under Section 482 Cr.P.C is allowed. The complaint pending before the Magistrate, Jalandhar and all orders passed therein are quashed. [Para 26) [576-F]

Case Law Reference:

2010 (10) SCR 47 Relied on Para 11

1995 (6) Suppl. SCR 139 Relied on Para 12

1997 (2) SCR 152 Relied on Para 12

2004 (1) SCR 82 Referred to Para 13

2006 (5) Suppl. SCR 505 Referred to Para 14

2009 (2 ) SCR 553 Referred to Para 14

1959 Suppl. SCR 1 Relied on Para 16

1967 SCR 469 Relied on Para 16

2007 (2) SCR 496 Referred to Para 18

AIR 1992 SC 1304 Referred to Para 19

AIR 2011 SC 1637 Referred to Para 20

2010 (13) SCR 706 Distinguished Para 23

2005 (2) SCR 638 Distinguished Para 23

2007 (8) SCR 582 Referred to Para 24

(2011) 6 SCC 508 Referred to Para 24 F

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 1635 of 2011.

From the Judgment & Order dated 09.08.2010 of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh, in Criminal Misc.

G No. M-29339 of 2009 (O&M).

Ranjit Kumar, Gautam Godara, Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure for the Appellant.

Anil Grover, MG, Manoj Swarup, Ankit Swarup, Preshit H

A Surshe, Rohit Kumar Singh, Kavita Wadia, Noopur Singhal for the Respondents.

The Judgment oft he Court was delivered by

DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J. 1. Leave granted.

2. The instant appeal reveals a very sorry state of affair where the wife files a criminal complaint before the competent court to initiate criminal proceedings against her husband alleging that they had obtained decree of divorce by playing fraud upon the court without realising that in such a fact-situation c she herself would be an accomplice in the crime and equally

responsible for the offence. More so, the appeal raises a substantial question of law as to whether the judgment and decree of a competent Civil Court can be declared null and void in collateral proceedings, that too, criminal proceedings.

3. This criminal appeal arises from the judgment and final order dated 9.8.201 O in Criminal Misc. No. M-29339 of 2009 (O&M) passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh, by which the High Court hc:ts dismissed the application filed by the appellant under Section 482 of Code E of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter called as 'Cr.P.C.') for quashing the complaint No. 87/02/09 dated 12.6.2009 filed by respondent no. 2 under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter called the 'Act 2005').

4. Facts and circumstances giving rise to present case are as under:

A. That the appellant and respondent no. 2 got married on 23.9.1998 at Jalandhar as per Sikh rites and from the said wedlock a son, namely, Gurarjit Singh was born on 5.10.1999.

G The parties to the marriage could not pull on well together because of temperamental differences and decided to get divorce and, therefore, filed HMA Case No. 168 of 19.9.2007 before the District Judge, Ludhiana under Section 13-8 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter called the 'Act 1955') H for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent. In the said case,

statements of appellant and respondent no. 2 were recorded A on 19.9.2007 and proceedings were adjourned for a period of more than six months to enable them to ponder over the issue.

B. The parties again appeared before the court on 20.3.2008 on second motion and their statements were recorded and both of them affirmed that it was not possible for B them to live together and, therefore, the learned District Judge, Ludhiana vide judgment and order dated 20.3.2008 allowed the said petition and dissolved their marriage.

C. Respondent no. 2 filed a complaint before Senior Superintendent of Police, Ludhiana against the appellant on C 4.5.2009 under the provisions of the Act 2005 alleging that the decree of divorce obtained by them was a sham transaction.

Even after getting divorce, both of them had been living together as husband and wife. She was forced to leave the matrimonial home. Thus, she prayed for justice. The said complaint was D sent to SP, City-I, Ludhiana for conducting inquiry. The said SP, City-I conducted the full-fledged inquiry and submitted the report on 4.5.2009 to the effect that the parties had been living separately after divorce and, no case was made out against the present appellant. However, he suggested to seek legal

opinion in the matter.

D. Accordingly, legal opinion dated 2.6.2009 was sought, wherein it was opined that the parties had obtained the divorce decree by mutual consent and the allegations made by respondent no. 2 against the appellant were false and baseless and the purpose of filing the complaint was only to harass the appellant.

E. Respondent no. 2 subsequently filed a complaint under

the Act 2005 on 12.6.2009. The learned Magistrate issued the G summons to the appellant on the same date. The Magistrate vide order dated 3.10.2009 summoned the minor child for counseling. The appellant, being aggrieved of the order of Ld.

Magistrate dated 12.6.2009, filed application dated 13.10.2009 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the complaint dated H

A 12.6.2009.

F. In the meanwhile, respondent no. 2 filed Civil Suit on 17.7.2009 in the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ludhiana, seeking declaration that the judgment and decree dated 20.3.2008, i.e. decree of divorce, was null and void as 8 it had been obtained by fraud. The said suit is still pending.

G. Respondent no. 2 also filed application dated 17 .12.2009 under Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 for grant of custody and guardianship of the minor child Gurarjit Singh and the same is pending for consideration before the Additional C Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ludhiana.

H. Respondent no. 2 on 11.2.2010 also lodged an FIR under Sections 406, 498-A, 376, 120-8 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter called 'IPC') against the appellant and

0 his mother and sister.

I. The High Court vide impugned judgment nd order dated 9.8.2010 dismissed the application filed by the appellant.

Hence, this appeal.

5. Shri Ranjit Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the High Court erred in rejecting the application of the appellant under Section 482 Cr.P.C., as none of U1e reliefs claimed by the respondent no.2 could be entertained by the criminal court while dealing with the F complaint; the complaint itself is time barred, thus, the Magistrate Court could not take cognizance thereof. The complaint has been filed because of malice in order to extract money from the appellant. More so, the plea of fraud alleged by the respondent no.2 in the complaint for obtaining the decree of divorce before the Civil Court as per her own version, G succinctly reveals that she herself had been a party to this fraud.

The High Court failed to appreciate as to what extent her version could be accepted as she herself being the accomplice in the ' said offence of fraud committed upon the court. Even if the allegations made therein are true, she is equally liable for H

punishment under Section 107 IPC. More so, the reliefs claimed A by the respondent no. 2 in the civil suit for declaring the decree of divorce as null and void and in another suit for getting the custody of the child referred to hereinabove, would meet her requirements. Thus, the appeal deserves to be allowed.

6. On the contrary, Shri Manoj Swarup, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.2 has vehemently opposed the appeal contending that decree of divorce is a nullity as it has been obtained by fraud. The relationship of husband and wife between the appellant and respondent no.2 still subsists and thus, complaint is maintainable. The court has to take the . C complaint on its face value and the allegations made in the complaint require adjudication on facts. The issue of limitation etc. can be examined by the Magistrate Court itself. The appeal lacks merit and is ljable to be dismissed.

7. We have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

8. Before we proceed to determine the case on merit, it is desirable to highlight the admitted facts of the case:

I. Appellant and respondent no.2 are highly qualified E persons. Both of them are employed and economically independent. Appellant is an Assistant Professor and respondent no. 2 is a Lecturer. The appellant is Ph.D and respondent no.2 has registered herself for Ph.D. They are competent to understand the complications of law and other F facts prevailing in the case.

II. Both of them got married in year 1998 and had been blessed with a son in year 1999. There was no complaint by respondent no.2 against the appellant of any cruelty, demand of dowry etc. before getting the decree o~ divorce dated G 20.3.2008 by mutual consent.

Ill. The decree of divorce has been obtained under Section 13-8 of the Act 1955. Respondent no.2 was examined by the court on first motion on 19.9.2007 wherein she stated, inter- H

A alia, as under:

"We are living separately from each other since

23. 9. 2005. Now there is no chance of our living together as husband and wife."

IV. Respondent no.2 was examined in the second motion by the learned District Judge, Ludhiana on 20.3.2008, wherein she stated as under:

"My statement was recorded on 19.9.2007 alongwith the statement of my husband lnderjit Singh Grewal. Six months time was given to us to ponder over the matter but we could not reconcile. One child was born from our wedlock namely Gurarjit Singh Grewal whose custody has been handed over by me to my husband lnderjit Singh Grewal and he shall look after the welfare of the said child.

We have settled all our disputes regarding dowry articles

and past and future permanent alimony. Now there is nothing left out against each other. A draft of Rs.3,00,000/

- .... has been received by me towards permanent alimony and maintanance and in lieu of dowry articles left by me in the matrimonial home. We are living separately since 23.9.2005. After that there is no co-habitation between us.

There is no scope of our living together as husband and wife. I will remain bound by the terms and conditions as enshrined in the petition. I have left with no claim against petitioner No.1. Our marriage may be dissolved by passing a decree of divorce by mutual consent."

V. The learned District Judge, Ludhiana granted the decree of divorce dated 20.3.2008 observing as under:

"They have settled all their disputes regarding dowry articles, past and future alimony .... They are living separately. from each other since 23.9.2005 ... The petitioners have not been able to reconcile .... The petitioners have settled all their disputes regarding dowry, stridhan and past arid future permanent alimony .... The custody of the son of the petitioners is handed over to

lnderjit Singh Grewal by Amandeep Kaur. The petition is A allowed. The marriage between the petitioners is henceforth declared dissolved .... "

VI. The complaint dated 4.5.2009 filed by respondent no. 2 before the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ludhiana was investigated by the Superintendent of Police, City-I, Ludhiana.

He recorded statements of several neighbours and maid servant working in appellant's house and submitted the report

to the effect that as the husband and wife could not live together, they obtained the decree of divorce by mutual consent.

However, the complainant Amandeep Kaur had alleged that she C was induced by her husband to get divorce for settling in the

United States and it was his intention to kick her out from the house. However, the husband stated that she had been paid Rs.3,00,000/- in the court by draft and Rs.27,00,000/- in cash for which the husband lnderjit Singh Grewal had entered into D an agreement to sell his ancestral property. The complainant had not been living with the appellant after the decree of divorce and they were not having physical relationship with each other.

It was further suggested in the report that legal opinion may also be taken.

VII. Legal opinion dated 2.6.2009 had been to the effect that the parties had taken divorce by mutual consent due to their differences. The allegation to the extent that they had been living together even after divorce were false and baseless and

had been labelled only to harass the appellant.

9. The instant case is required to be considered in the aforesaid factual backdrop.

So far as the complaint dated 12.6.2009 is concerned, there had been allegation of mis-behaviour against the G appellant during the period of year 2005. Respondent no. 2 alleged that during that period she had not been treated well by the appellant, thus, she had to take shelter in the house of her parents~ all her belongings including the dowry articles were kept by the appellant and his parents. She has further given H

A details how both of them have obtained decree of divorce by

mutual consent as they wanted to settle in United States and therefore, they had decided to get divorce on paper so that the appellant may go to U.S.A. and get American citizenship by negotiating a marriage of convenience with some U.S. citizen B and divorce her and again re-marry the complainant. She

further alleged that even after decree of divorce she had been living with the appellant till 7.2.2009 and continued co-habitation with him. They had visited several places together during this period. The child had been forcibly snatched from her by the c appellant. Therefore, she was entitled to the custody of the minor child along with other reliefs.

10. The question does arise as to whether reliefs sought in the complaint can be granted by the criminal court so long as the judgment and decree of the Civil Court dated 20.3.2008 D subsists. Respondent no.2 has prayed as under:

"It is therefore prayed that the respondent no. 1 be directed to hand over the custody of the minor child Gurarjit Singh Grewal forthwith. It is also prayed that the respondent no. 1 be directed to pay to her a sum of E Rs. 15, 0001per month by way of rent of the premises to be hired by her at Ludhiana for her residence. It is also prayed that all the respondents be directed to restore to her all the dowry articles as detailed in Annexure A to C or in the alternative they be directed to pay to her a sum F of Rs.22,95,0001as the price of the dowry articles.

Affidavit attached."

Thus, the reliefs sought have been threefolds:

(a) Custody of the minor son; (b) right of residence; and G (c) restoration of dowry articles.

11. It is a settle~ legal proposition that where a person gets an order/office by making misrepresentation or playing fraud upon the competent authority, such order cannot .be sustained in the eyes of the law as fraud unravels everything.

H "Equity is always known to defend the law from crafty evasions

and new subtleties invented to evade law". It is a trite that A "Fraud and justice never dwell together'' (fraus etjus nunquam cohabitant). Fraud is an act of deliberate deception with a design to secure something, which is otherwise not due. Fraud and deception are synonymous. "Fraud is an anathema to all equitable principles and any affair tainted with fraud cannot be B perpetuated or saved by the application of any equitable doctrine". An act of fraud on court is always viewed seriously. (Vide: Meghmala & Ors. v. G. Narasimha Reddy & Ors., c201 O) a sec 383)

12. However, the question does arise as to whether it is C permissible for a party to treat the judgment and order as null and void without getting it set aside from the competent court.

The issue is no more res integra and stands settled by a catena of decisions of this Court. For setting aside such D an order, even if void, the party has to approach the appropriate forum. (Vide: State of Kera/a v. M.K.

Kunhikannan Nambiar Manjeri Manikoth, Naduvil (dead) & Ors., AIR 1996 SC 906; and Tayabbhai M.

Bagasarwalla & Anr. v. Hind Rubber Industries Pvt. Ltd.,

AIR 1997 SC 1240).

13. In Sultan Sadik v. Sanjay Raj Subba & Ors., AIR 2004 SC 1377, this Court held that there cannot be any doubt that even if an order is void or voidable, the same requires to be set aside by the competent court.

14. In M. Meenakshi & Ors. v. Metadin Agarwal (dead)

by Lrs. & Ors., (2006) 7 SCC 470, this Court considered the issue at length and observed that if the party feels that the order passed by the court or a statutory authority is non-est/void, he should question the validity of the said order before the G appropriate forum resorting to the appropriate proceedings.

The Court observed as under:-

"It is well settled principle of law that even a void order is required to be set aside by a competent Court of law, inasmuch as an order may be void in respect of one H

person but may be valid in respect of another. A void order is necessarily not non-est. An order cannot be declared to be void in collateral proceedings and that too in the absence of the authorities who were the authors thereof" (Emphasis added)

Similar view has been reiterated by this Court in Sneh Gupta v. Devi Sarup & Ors., (2009) 6 SCC 194.

From the above, it is evident that even if a decree is void ab initio, declaration to that effect has to be obtained by the c person aggrieved from the competent court. More so, such a

declaration cannot be obtained in collateral proceedings.

15. Respondent no.2 herself had been a party to the fraud committed by the appellant upon the civil court for getting the decree of divorce as alleged by her in the impugned complaint.

D Thus, according to her own admission she herself is an abettor to the crime.

A person alleging his own infamy cannot be heard at any forum as explained by the legal maxim "allegans suam turpetudinem non est audiendus". No one should have an E advantage from his own wrong (commondum ex injuria sua memo habere debet). No action arises from an immoral cause (ex turpi cause non oritur action).

Damage suffered by consent is not a cause of action (volenti non fit injuria). The statements/allegations made by the respondent no.2 patently F and latently involve her in the alleged fraud committed upon the court. Thus, she made herself disentitled for any equitable relief.

16. The offence of abetment is complete when the alleged G abettor has instigated another or engaged with another in a conspiracy to commit offence. (Vide: Faguna Kanta Nath v.

The State of Assam, AIR 1959 SC 673; and Jamuna Singh

v. $fate of Bihar AIR 1967 SC 553). If more than one person combining both in intent and act, commit an offence jointly, each is guilty, as if he has done the whole act alone. Offence has H been defined under Section 40 IPC and Section 43 IPC

defines illegality. Making false statement on oath before the A court is an offence under Section 191 IPC and punishable under Section 193 IPC.

17. While granting the decree of divorce, the statement of respondent no.2 had been recorded in the first as well as in the second motion as mentioned hereinabove. Period of more B than 6 months was given to her to think over the issue. However, she made a similar statement in the second motion as well.

18. As per the statutory requirement, the purpose of second motion after a period of six months is that parties may C make further efforts for reconciliation in order to save their marriage. There is also obligation on the part of the court under Section 23(2) of the Act 1955 to make every endeavour to bring about a reconciliation between the parties.

In Jagraj Singh v. Birpal Kaur, AIR 2007 SC 2083, this o Court held that conjugal rights are not merely creature of statute but inherent in the very institution of marriage. Hence, the approach of a court of law in matrimonial matters should be "much more constructive, affirmative and productive rather than abstract, theoretical or doctrinaire". The court should not give up the effort of reconciliation merely on the ground that there is no chance for reconciliation or one party or the other says that there is no possibility of living together. Therefore, it is merely a misgiving that the courts are not concerned and obligated to save the sanctity of the institution of marriage.

19. In Smt. Sureshta Devi v. Om Prakash, AIR 1992 SC 1304, this Court held that mere filing the petition for divorce by mutual consent does not authorise the court to make a decree for divorce. The interregnum waiting period from 6 to 18 months

is obviously intended to give time and opportunity to the parties G to reflect on their move and seek advice from relations and friends. In this transitional period one of the parties may have a second thought and change the mind not to proceed with the petition. The court must be satisfied about the bona fides and the consent of the parties for the reason that court gets H

A jurisdiction to make a decree for divorce only on mutual consent at the time of enquiry. The consent must continue to decree nisi and must be valid subsisting consent when the case is heard. Thus, withdrawal of consent can be unilateral prior to second motion. The Court further observed: 8

"The 'living separately' for a period of one year should be immediately preceding the presentation of the petition.

It is necessary that immediately preceding the presentation of petition, the parties must have been living separately. The expression 'living separately', connotes to our mind not living like husband and wife. It has no reference to the place of living. The parties may live under the same roof by force of circumstances, and yet they may not be living as husband and wife. The. parties may be living in different houses and yet they could live as husband and wife. What seems to be necesssary is that they have no desire to perform marital obligations and with that mental attitude they have been living separately for a period of one year immediately preceding the presentation of the petition. The second requirement that they 'have not been able to live together' seems to indicate the concept of broken down marriage and it would not be possible to reconcile themselves. The third requirement is that they have mutually agreed that the marriage should be dissolved." (Emphasis added)

20. For grant of divorce in such a case, the Court has to be satisfied about the existence of mutual consent between the parties on some tangible materials which demonstrably disclose such consent. (Vide: Hitesh Bhatnagar v. Deepa Bhatnagar, AIR 2011 SC 1637).

21. Respondent no.2, who did not change her stand in the second motion and obtained a sham decree of divorce as alleged by her asked the criminal court to sit in appeal against the judgment and decree of the competent Civil Court. The complaint was filed before the Magistrate, Jalandhar while the H decree of divorce had been granted by the District Judge,

Ludhiana i.e. of another district. Therefore, it is beyond our A imagination as under what circumstances a subordinate criminal court can sit in appeal against the judgment and order of the superior Civil Court, having a different territorial jurisdiction.

22. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the B submission made on behalf of respondent no.2 that the judgment and decree of a Civil Court granting divorce is null

and void and they continued to be the husband and wife, cannot be taken note of at this stage unless the suit filed by the respondent no.2 to declare the said judgment and decree dated C 20.3.2008 is decided in her favour. In view thereof, the evidence adduced by her particularly the record of the telephone calls, photographs attending a wedding together and her signatures in school diary of the child cannot be taken into consideration so long as the judgment and decree of the Civil o Court subsists. On the similar footing, the contention advanced by her counsel that even after the decree of divorce, they continued to live together as husband and wife and therefore the complaint under the Act 2005 is maintainable, is not worth acceptance at this stage.

23. In D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiamma/, (2010) 10 SCC 469, this Court considered the expression "domestic relationship" under Section 2(f) of the Act 2005 placing reliance on earlier judgment in Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya

v. State of Gujarat & Ors., (2005) 3 SCC 636 and held that F relationship "in the nature of marriage" is akin to a common law marriage. However, the couple must hold themselves out to society as being akin to spouses in addition to fulfilling all other requisite conditions for a valid marriage.

The said judgments are distinguishable on facts as those G cases relate to live-in relationship without marriage. In the instant case, the parties got married and the decree of Civil Court for divorce still subsists. More so, a suit to declare the said judgment and decree as a nullity is still pending consideration before the competent court.

24. Submissions made by Shri Ranjit Kumar on the issue of limitation, in view of the provisions of Section 468 Cr.P.C., that the complaint could be filed only within a period of one year from the date of the incident seem to be preponderous in view of the provisions of Sections 28 and 32 of the Act 2005 read B with Rule 15(6) of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Rules, 2006 which make the provisions of Cr.P.C. applicable and stand fortified by the judgments of this court in Japani Sahoo v. Chandra Sekhar Mohanty, AIR 2007 SC 2762; and Noida Entrepreneurs Association v. Noida & Ors., c (2011) 6 sec 508.

25. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that permitting the Magistrate to proceed further with the complaint under the provisions of the Act 2005 is not compatible and in consonance with the decree of divorce which D still subsists and thus, the process amounts to abuse of the process of the court. Undoubtedly, for quashing a complaint, the court has to take its contents on its face value and in case the same discloses an offence, the court generally does not interfere with the same. However, in the backdrop of the factual E matrix of this case, permitting the court to proceed with the complaint would be travesty of justice. Thus, interest of justice warrants quashing of the same.

26. The appeal succeeds and is. allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 9.8.2010 is hereby set aside. Petition F filed by the appellant under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed.

Complaint No. 87/02/09 pending before the Magistrate, Jalandhar and all orders passed therein are quashed.

Before parting with the case, we clarify that respondent no.2 shall be entitled to continue with her other cases and the G court concerned may proceed in accordance with law without being influenced by the observations made herein. The said observations have been made only to decide the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by the appellant.

H N.J.

Appeal allowed.