Lakshmi Priya Seshan v. Shankar Guhadas, Kerala High Court, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Factual and Procedural Background

The appellant and respondent were married on 1 February 2008 at Trivandrum. They were residing in the United States of America in connection with their employment. From the outset there was incompatibility between the couple and they decided to part ways. The respondent filed FL 09‑148 before the Yolo Superior Court, which passed a judgment on 26 October 2009 dissolving the marriage (Ext. A3). The appellant thereafter filed OP(HMA).394/10 before the Family Court, Trivandrum seeking a declaration that the Yolo Superior Court judgment (Ext. A3) is valid. The Family Court dismissed that petition by judgment dated 21 April 2012, mainly on the ground that the conditions specified in section 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) were not satisfied. The appellant challenged that Family Court judgment by filing the present appeal. The bench heard counsel for both parties.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
International Woollen Mills v. Standard Wool (U.K.) Ltd., (2001) 5 SCC 265; AIR 2001 SC 2134	Interpreting clause (b) of section 13 CPC: an ex parte foreign judgment may still be a judgment "on the merits" if it is rendered after consideration of oral and/or documentary evidence.	The court relied on the interpretation in paragraphs 27–28 of this decision to establish that an ex parte decree can be on the merits only if the judgment reflects consideration of evidence; this principle was applied to assess Ext. A3.
Chintamoni Padhan v. Paika Samal, AIR 1956 Orissa 136	Characterized a "judgment on the merits" as one entered after full trial, pleadings, presentation of evidence and arguments by both sides (as cited in International Woollen Mills).	The court noted this authority but, following International Woollen Mills, treated its strict formulation as not laying down the correct law in all cases; it explained that even where one side does not enter evidence, a judgment might still be on the merits if evidence was considered.
Trilochan Choudhary v. Dayanidhi Patra, AIR 1961 Orissa 158	Overruled the narrow view in Chintamoni Padhan and held that under Section 13(6) an ex parte judgment in favour of the plaintiff may be deemed a judgment on the merits if some evidence is adduced for the plaintiff and the judgment, though brief, is based on consideration of that evidence.	The court relied on this authority (as explained in International Woollen Mills) to support the proposition that absence of defendant participation does not, by itself, render an ex parte foreign judgment non‑meritorious; application turned on whether the foreign judgment shows consideration of evidence.

Precedent

Rule or Principle Cited For

Application by the Court

International Woollen Mills v. Standard Wool (U.K.) Ltd., (2001) 5 SCC 265; AIR 2001 SC 2134

Interpreting clause (b) of section 13 CPC: an ex parte foreign judgment may still be a judgment "on the merits" if it is rendered after consideration of oral and/or documentary evidence.

The court relied on the interpretation in paragraphs 27–28 of this decision to establish that an ex parte decree can be on the merits only if the judgment reflects consideration of evidence; this principle was applied to assess Ext. A3.

Chintamoni Padhan v. Paika Samal, AIR 1956 Orissa 136

Characterized a "judgment on the merits" as one entered after full trial, pleadings, presentation of evidence and arguments by both sides (as cited in International Woollen Mills).

The court noted this authority but, following International Woollen Mills, treated its strict formulation as not laying down the correct law in all cases; it explained that even where one side does not enter evidence, a judgment might still be on the merits if evidence was considered.

Trilochan Choudhary v. Dayanidhi Patra, AIR 1961 Orissa 158

Overruled the narrow view in Chintamoni Padhan and held that under Section 13(6) an ex parte judgment in favour of the plaintiff may be deemed a judgment on the merits if some evidence is adduced for the plaintiff and the judgment, though brief, is based on consideration of that evidence.

The court relied on this authority (as explained in International Woollen Mills) to support the proposition that absence of defendant participation does not, by itself, render an ex parte foreign judgment non‑meritorious; application turned on whether the foreign judgment shows consideration of evidence.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court examined Ext. A3 (the Yolo Superior Court judgment) and observed that it was rendered ex parte and did not discuss any oral or documentary evidence. The pivotal legal test identified was whether a foreign judgment is a judgment "on the merits" within the meaning of section 13(b) CPC. The court relied on the Apex Court's interpretation in International Woollen Mills, which explained that an ex parte judgment may nevertheless be a judgment on the merits if it was rendered after consideration of oral and/or documentary evidence, and also explained the effect of the decisions in Chintamoni Padhan and Trilochan Choudhary.

Applying that legal standard, the court found that Ext. A3 contains no discussion of evidence and that the entries in the judgment itself indicate it was ex parte. Because the foreign judgment did not reflect any consideration of oral or documentary evidence, it did not meet the requirement of being a judgment on the merits under section 13(b) CPC as interpreted by the Apex Court. On that basis the Family Court's conclusion — that the conditions in section 13 CPC were not satisfied — was held to be correct. The court concluded there was no illegality in the Family Court judgment and therefore no ground for interference on appeal.

Holding and Implications

APPEAL DISMISSED

Holding: The appellate court upheld the Family Court, Trivandrum's dismissal of OP(HMA).394/10 and dismissed the present appeal. The court held that the Yolo Superior Court judgment (Ext. A3), being ex parte and not evidencing any consideration of oral or documentary evidence, does not qualify as a judgment "on the merits" for purposes of section 13(b) CPC.

Implications: The direct effect is that the Family Court's order dismissing the petition seeking recognition of the foreign divorce judgment stands and the appellant's challenge fails. The opinion does not announce any broader or novel precedent beyond applying the Apex Court's existing interpretation of section 13 CPC to the facts of this case.

Lakshmi Priya Seshan v. Shankar Guhadas

Antony Dominic, J.:— This appeal arises from the judgment of the Family Court, Trivandrum dismissing OP(HMA). No. 394/10 filed by the appellant.

2. Appellant and the respondent were married on 1.2.2008 at Trivandrum.

3. In connection with their employment, they are residing in the United States of America. Since inception, there was incompatibility between the couple. Finally, they decided to part ways and accordingly, the respondent filed FL 09 - 148 before the Yolo Superior Court. Accordingly, judgment was passed by that court on 26.10.2009, dissolving the marriage between the appellant and the respondent. Thereafter, the appellant filed OP(HMA).394/10 before the Family Court, Trivandrum seeking a declaration that the aforesaid judgment of the Yolo Superior Court (Ext. A3) is valid. That OP was dismissed by the Family Court by judgment dated 21.4.2012 mainly on the ground that the conditions specified in section 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not satisfied. It is challenging that judgment, the appellant has filed this appeal.

4. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent.

5. A reading of Ext. A3 judgment of the Yolo superior Court shows that it was passed ex parte and without discussing evidence, if any, that is adduced before that court. The’ question to be considered is whether such a judgment satisfies the requirement of section 13 CPC. Section 13 CPC provides the circumstances when a foreign judgment is not conclusive and one of the circumstances provided in clause (b) is where the judgment has not been given on the merits of the case. Clause (b) of section 13 was interpreted by the Apex Court in International Woollen Mills v. Standard Wool (U.K) Ltd., (2001) 5 SCC 265 : AIR 2001 SC 2134, where, in paragraphs 27 and 28, it was held thus:

“27. Reliance was also placed upon the case of Chintamoni Padhan v. Paika Samal reported in AIR 1956 Orissa 136. In this case it has been held that a judgment on the merits is one which is entered after a full trial of the issues through pleadings, presentation of evidence, and arguments by both sides. It is held that the expression ‘judgment on the merits’ implied that it must have been passed after contest and after evidence had been let in by both sides. In our view the authority also cannot be said to be laying down the correct law. In a given case it is possible that even though defendant has not entered evidence the plaintiff may prove its case through oral and documentary evidence. If after consideration of oral and/or documentary evidence an ex parte decree is passed, it would be a decree on merits. 28.1n the case of Trilochan Choudhary v. Dayanidhi Patra reported in AIR 1961 Orissa 158, the above mentioned decision in Chintamoni Padhan's case, AIR 1956 Orissa 136 has been overruled. In this case it is held that under Section 13(6) even an ex parte judgment in favour of the plaintiff may be deemed to be a judgment given on merits if some evidence is adduced on behalf of the plaintiffs and the judgment, hov/ever, brief, is based on a consideration of that evidence. Where however no evidence is adduced on the plaintiffs side and his suit is decreed merely because of the absence of the defendant either by way of penalty or in a formal manner, the judgment may not be one based on the merits of the case. In our view this authority laid down the correct law.”

6. A reading of the above paragraphs shows that even if the judgment is an ex parte one, if the same has been rendered after consideration of the oral or documentary evidence, that judgment would be a judgment on merits. In so far as this case is concerned. Ext. A3 is the judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant and that judgment neither discussed any oral evidence nor it discussed any documentary evidence. The entries in the judgment itself also show that the judgment was rendered ex parte. Evidently therefore, such a judgment is not a judgment on merits as provided in section 13(b) of CPC and as explained by the Apex Court in the judgment noticed above.

7. In the aforesaid circumstances, the judgment of the Family court does not suffer from any illegality and we are unable to interfere with the same. Appeal fails and it is, therefore, dismissed.

Mat. Appeal. No. 636 of 2012

Lakshmi Priya Seshan v. Shankar Guhadas

Judgment Summary — Antony Dominic, J.

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

Lakshmi Priya Seshan v. Shankar Guhadas

Comments