2015 (4) TMI 1286 - HC - Indian Laws

Principle of in pari delicto - Declaration and permanent injunction by the plaintiff - transferring or creating third party rights in property - dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce under Section 13-B(2) - HELD THAT - This Court is of the view that plaintiff has been taking convenient stands presumably to defeat the rights of his creditors without any regard for truth - In this Court s opinion after obtaining a decree of divorce on the basis of sworn affidavits that the plaintiff had not been cohabitating with his wife since 01st March 2011 the plaintiff cannot today contend that he has never lived separately from defendant No.1-wife. It is settled law that when parties to a legal controversy are in pari delicto neither can obtain any relief from the Court since both are at equal fault or of equal guilt. This Court is of the view that the present plaint is barred by the principle of in pari delicto - the present plaint and applications are rejected as barred by law under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

Summary

Issues:
Declaration and permanent injunction sought against wife, daughter, and son-in-law regarding property transfer and divorce decree.

Analysis:
The plaintiff filed a suit seeking a declaration that various documents, including a divorce decree and property transfers, are null and void. The plaintiff claimed to have transferred assets due to losses from a fire incident and took a divorce from his wife under duress. The plaintiff alleged that despite the divorce, he and his wife continued to live together as husband and wife, visiting various places together. The court noted discrepancies in the plaintiff's claims, finding that he had taken convenient stands to avoid his creditors, without regard for truth. The court concluded that the plaintiff had played fraud upon the court and was equally at fault, applying the principle of in pari delicto, where parties in equal fault cannot obtain relief. The court cited legal precedents emphasizing that courts should not assist wrongdoers and that parties involved in illegal transactions cannot seek judicial relief. Consequently, the court rejected the plaint and applications as barred by law under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.