The Allahabad High Court has ruled that a later judicial decision cannot overturn a previously settled compromise in matrimonial cases. This judgment reinforces the finality of court-approved settlements and clarifies legal recourse for parties in such cases.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
LUCKNOW: In a ruling, the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, reinforced a principle in Indian civil and criminal jurisprudence: a subsequent judicial pronouncement cannot automatically serve as a ground to recall a previous order that was passed based on a mutual compromise between litigating parties.
Background of the Case
The case originated from a criminal miscellaneous writ petition filed by a husband and others. On January 9, 2025, a coordinate bench of the High Court quashed an FIR registered under Sections 323, 504, 506, 392, and 354 of the Indian Penal Code, along with all consequential proceedings. This decision was based on a compromise deed executed on February 17, 2024, in which the petitioner-husband and the informant-wife mutually agreed to withdraw all cases filed against each other. The compromise deed had been duly verified by the Senior Registrar of the court.
The Recall Application
On May 27, 2025, the wife filed an application seeking a recall of the High Court’s January 9 order. Her argument rested on a subsequent development: a May 6, 2025 judgment by the Additional Principal Judge-VI, Family Court, Lucknow, which dismissed the husband’s petition under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking to annul their marriage.
The wife contended that she had withdrawn her own divorce petition in good faith as part of the earlier compromise. However, the dismissal of the husband’s annulment petition, she argued, had created a “dilemma” in her marital status, effectively defeating the purpose of the settlement.
Court’s Analysis
The Allahabad High Court bench, comprising Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Justice Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi, considered the facts of the case carefully:
- The wife had previously converted to Islam and married another man on July 6, 2013.
- She later married the petitioner-husband according to Hindu rites on June 28, 2020, before her divorce from her first husband was finalized on January 19, 2021.
- Neither the parties nor their counsel could satisfactorily explain how the second marriage could have occurred under Hindu law, given the difference in religion and the status of her first marriage.
Without delving deeply into the factual matrix, the court highlighted settled law on void marriages under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955:
- Section 11, read with Section 5(i), provides that a marriage is void if either party has a living spouse at the time of marriage.
- Supreme Court precedents, including Deoki Panjhiyara v. Shashi Bhushan Narayan Azad (2013), Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav v. Anantrao Shivram Adhav (1988), M. M. Malhotra v. Union of India (2005), and A. Subash Babu v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2011), affirm that such marriages are void ab initio and do not require a formal declaration for nullity, though such declarations are prudent for record-keeping.
The High Court emphasized:
- Finality of Compromise Orders – An order passed based on a mutual compromise cannot be reopened simply because a subsequent court judgment affects the parties’ situation.
- Jurisdiction of Courts – Marital status and declarations of nullity must be addressed by competent courts in proper proceedings.
- Separate Legal Recourse – Aggrieved parties are free to challenge subsequent judgments through appropriate legal channels, but this cannot be used to unsettle an already settled compromise.
Final Decision:
The Court rejected the recall application, stating:
“Taking into consideration the contentions raised by the Opposite Party No.4/Applicant herein… we find no good ground warranting this Court to interfere with the said Order dated 09.01.2025, merely on the premise of some subsequent development, that too, a judicial pronouncement dated 06.05.2025 rendered by a competent Court of law.”
The bench clarified that if the parties were dissatisfied with the Family Court’s May 6, 2025, judgment, they could seek appropriate legal remedies under the law, but the compromise-based quashing order of January 9, 2025, would remain intact.
Appearance:
Counsel for Petitioner: Mohd. Ghayasuddin Khan, Lav Singh, Mohd. Ghayasuddin Khan, Shyam Narain Mishra
Counsel for Respondent: G.A., Manish Soni, Mohit Kumar Rawat, Saurabh Kr Shahi
Case Title:
Ketan Rastogi And Others Versus State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Ministry Of Home Affairs Civil Secrt. Lko. And Others
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. – 1314 of 2024
Read Judgment:
