- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Shrawan Kumar Pappu v. Nirmala
Factual and Procedural Background
The petitioner filed a suit in a lower court seeking a permanent injunction restraining respondent No. 2 from marrying any person other than the petitioner. The petitioner alleges that there was an agreement to solemnize marriage with respondent No. 2, but she is likely to marry someone else. The lower court issued an order directing notices to be issued to the other side before considering the grant of interim injunction. The petitioner challenged this order by invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether a suit seeking permanent injunction to restrain a person from marrying another person is maintainable under law.
- Whether such a suit is barred by public policy and section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure (C.P.C).
- Whether the High Court can exercise suo motu powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to quash a plaint that is frivolous, vexatious, or against public policy.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Prem Shanker Tripathi v. The First Additional District Judge, Allahabad, 1986 12 ALR 317 | A suit of frivolous and vexatious nature which scandalises the administration of justice is against public policy and is impliedly barred; the High Court can quash such a plaint suo motu. | The Court relied on this precedent to support the exercise of suo motu supervisory power to quash the plaint of the suit due to its vexatious nature and public policy considerations. |
| Gulab Chandra v. The Munsif West, Allahabad, 1988 14 ALR 265 | Litigation that is sham, illusory, collusive, or inspired by nefarious and vexatious designs should be nipped in the bud; the High Court has jurisdiction and duty under Article 227 to quash such plaints. | The Court applied this principle to justify quashing the plaint as the suit appeared to be instituted for harassment and was not filed in good faith. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court observed that the suit seeks to restrain a person from marrying another, which is against public policy and impliedly barred under section 9 of the C.P.C. It noted that Section 26 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 declares any agreement restraining marriage void. Since no valid agreement can exist to restrain marriage, no court order can enforce such restraint. The Court emphasized that the right to marry is an integral part of the fundamental right to life and liberty, which cannot be taken away.
The suit was seen as vexatious, nefarious in design, and likely instituted to harass the respondent or pressure her family, thus lacking good faith. The Court cited precedents establishing that frivolous and vexatious litigation against public policy should not be entertained and can be quashed suo motu under Article 227 of the Constitution. The petitioner’s counsel was unable to justify the maintainability of the suit when prompted.
Consequently, the Court exercised its suo motu power to quash the plaint of the suit pending in the lower court.
Holding and Implications
The plaint of the original suit No. 1033 of 2012 filed by the petitioner is quashed.
The writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging the lower court's order is disposed of accordingly. The decision directly affects the parties by terminating the vexatious suit but does not establish any new precedent beyond reaffirming existing principles regarding suits against public policy and the exercise of suo motu powers by the High Court.
Pankaj Mithal, J.:— Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.
2. A very peculiar suit has been filed in the Court below by the petitioner. The plaint of the suit which is Annexure-1 to the petition reveals that the petitioner, who is plaintiff in the suit alleges that his marriage was agreed to be solemnized with respondent No. 2 but now it appears that she is likely to marry someone else and therefore, decree of permanent injunction be passed restraining her. from marrying any over person except the petitioner.
3. It is against the order of the Court in the above suit directing notices to be issued to the other side before considering the matter for grant of interim injunction that the petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court.
4. I am quite astonished at the relief which has been claimed in the suit. The suit ex facie appears to be against public policy and as such is impliedly barred by section 9, C.P.C
5. Section 26 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 provides that an agreement to restrain a marriage of any person is void.
6. A thing in respect of which no valid agreement can come into existence cannot be ordered to be done by the order of the Court and therefore, the suit claiming such a relief would certainly be barred.
7. Right to marry is an integral part of right to life and liberty and is akin to a fundamental right. A fundamental right of a person cannot be taken away and therefore, also the suit as filed is clearly against the public policy.
8. The suit appears to have been instituted for harassing the respondent or to put some kind of pressure on her family members. It is not designed in good faith.
9. His Lordship's of this Court in Prem Shanker Tripathi v. The First Additional District Judge, Allahabad 1986 12 ALR 317. ruled that a suit of frivolous and vexatious nature which scandalises the administration of justice is clearly against the dictates of the public policy should not be taken cognizance of as it is impliedly barred and the High Court in exercise of suo motu supervisory power can quash the plaint of such a suit.
10. A similar view has been expressed by Division Bench of this Court in Gulab Chandra v. The Munsif West, Allahabad 1988 14 ALR 265., and it has been observed that a litigation which is sham, illusory, collusive or which is inspired by nefarious and vexatious designs should be nipped in the bud and the High Court not only has jurisdiction but owes duty to check such litigation in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by quashing the plaint.
11. The Counsel was put to notice to address the Court to show how the suit was maintainable but he was unable to give any assistance.
12. In view of above legal position, when the plaint of the suit as is before me on its face is vexatious and nefarious in design, I not only consider it my responsibility to refuse to interfere with the order impugned but at the same time in exercise of my suo motu power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India considers it my obligation to quash the plaint itself. In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances, the plaint of original suit No. 1033 of 2012 Shrawan Kumar @ Pappu v. Nirmala, pending in the Court of Additional Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Kanpur is quashed.
13. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
14. Petition Disposed Of.
Alert