2001 (2) TMI 980 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the provisions contained under Section 152 C.P.C. may or may not strictly apply to any particular proceeding? Whether on the facts of the present case and the principles it could be said that there was any clerical or arithmetical error or accidental slip on the part of the Court or not? Held that - Allow the appeal. Looking to the prayers made by the respondent-husband for granting mandatory injunction the application for rectification of decree was totally misconceived and was only liable to be dismissed rather to incorporate terms and conditions of the agreement dated 26.7.1991 in respect of which no prayer was made in the application for modification nor in the original petition for dissolution of marriage more particularly when no accidental slip on the part of the Court was indicated in the application nor the same being substantiated. In view of the discussion allow this appeal and set aside the orders passed by the High Court and family court dated 11.11.1992 allowing the application for rectification/modification of the decree dated 7.3.1992.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Modification of Divorce Decree
2. Incorporation of Agreement Terms in Decree
3. Clerical or Accidental Error in Decree
4. Legal Provisions under Section 152 C.P.C.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Modification of Divorce Decree:
The appeal is against a judgment modifying an earlier decree by the Family Court, which was upheld by the High Court. The appellant challenged this modification, which included terms from an agreement between the parties into the divorce decree. The Supreme Court examined whether the Family Court's modification was justified under Section 152 of the Civil Procedure Code (C.P.C.).

2. Incorporation of Agreement Terms in Decree:
The original divorce petition included an agreement between the parties regarding property and custody issues. However, the decree only granted divorce without incorporating these terms. The husband later sought modification to include these terms, claiming they were omitted due to the parties' lack of legal representation. The Family Court amended the decree to include the agreement's terms, but this was contested by the wife, who argued no payment was made as per the agreement.

3. Clerical or Accidental Error in Decree:
The Supreme Court analyzed whether the omission of the agreement terms in the original decree was due to a clerical or accidental error, which could be rectified under Section 152 C.P.C. The Court found no evidence that the Family Court intended to include these terms but accidentally omitted them. The original petition did not specifically request incorporating the agreement into the decree, and the application for modification did not claim an accidental slip by the court.

4. Legal Provisions under Section 152 C.P.C.:
Section 152 C.P.C. allows rectification of clerical or arithmetical errors or accidental slips in judgments or decrees. The Supreme Court emphasized that this provision is meant to correct unintended mistakes by the court, not to reconsider the merits of the case or alter the original judgment. The Court cited precedents where rectification was allowed only for clear, unintentional errors.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that the Family Court's modification of the decree was not justified under Section 152 C.P.C. since there was no clerical or accidental error. The original decree's omission of the agreement terms was not due to an oversight by the court but possibly due to the parties' failure to request it explicitly. The appeal was allowed, and the orders of the High Court and Family Court modifying the decree were set aside, without any order as to costs.