A Relief For Which No Prayer Or Pleading Was Made Should Not Be Granted : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that a relief for which no prayer or pleading was made should not be granted.If a Court considers or grants a relief for which no prayer or pleading was made depriving the respondent of an opportunity to oppose or resist such relief, it would lead to miscarriage of justice, the bench comprising Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Krishna Murari observed.The court observed thus while setting aside a judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court which directed a mother to change the surname of her child and also to show the name of her new husband in records only as 'step father'. The High Court had issued these directions while disposing an appeal that arose from a petition under Section 10 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890.One of the issues raised in the appeal before the Apex Court was whether the High Court has the power to direct the Appellant to change the surname of the child specially when such relief was never sought by the respondents in their petition before the trial Court? [The main issue in this case was answered by the bench in favour of appellant and the same is reported here.]The court noticed that absolutely no relief was ever sought by the respondents for the change of surname of the child to that of first husband/ son of respondents."It is settled law that relief not found on pleadings should not be granted. If a Court considers or grants a relief for which no prayer or pleading was made depriving the respondent of an opportunity to oppose or resist such relief, it would lead to miscarriage of justice.", the bench said referring to some Supreme Court judgments.Holding thus, the court partly allowed the appeal while observing thus:In this case while directing for change of surname of the child, the High Court has traversed beyond pleadings and such directions are liable to be set aside on this ground.. Before parting with this subject, to obviate any uncertainty it is reiterated that the mother being the only natural guardian of the child has the right to decide the surname of the child. She also has the right to give the child in adoption. The Court may have the power to intervene but only when a prayer specific to that effect is made and such prayer must be centered on the premise that child's interest is the primary consideration and it outweighs all other considerations. With the above observations the directions of the High Court so far as the surname of the child is concerned are set aside.Case detailsAkella Lalita vs Sri Konda Hanumantha Rao | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 638 | CA 6325-6326 OF 2015 | 28 July 2022 | Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Krishna MurariHeadnotesSummary - Andhra Pradesh HC direction to a mother who remarried another person after death of her first husband to restore surname of a child - Further direction that wherever the records permit, the name of the natural father shall be shown and if it is otherwise impermissible, the name of the present husband shall be mentioned as step-father - Allowing appeal, the Supreme Court observed: Nothing unusual in mother, upon remarriage having given the child the surname of her husband or even giving the child in adoption to her husband - The direction to include the name of the present husband as step-father in documents is almost cruel and mindless of how it would impact the mental health and self-esteem of the child - The mother being the only natural guardian of the child has the right to decide the surname of the child. She also has the right to give the child in adoptionCivil Cases - Pleadings - Relief not found on pleadings should not be granted. If a Court considers or grants a relief for which no prayer or pleading was made depriving the respondent of an opportunity to oppose or resist such relief, it would lead to miscarriage of justice - Referred to Messrs. Trojan & Co. Ltd. Vs. Rm.N.N. Nagappa Chettiar AIR 1953 SC 235 and Bharat Amratlal Kothari vs Dosukhan Samadkhan Sindh AIR 2010 SC 475. (Para 15-18)Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 ; Section 9(3) - Natural Guardian - Mother has an equal position as the father - Referred to Githa Hariharan and Ors. vs. Reserve Bank of India and Ors. (Para 9)Hindu Adoption & Maintenance Act, 1956 ; Section 12 - Adoption - While the main object of adoption in the past has been to secure the performance of one's funeral rights and to preserve the continuance of one's lineage, in recent times, the modern adoption theory aims to restore family life to a child deprived of his or her biological family - When child takes on to be a kosher member of the adoptive family it is only logical that he takes the surname of the adoptive family - A name is important as a child derives his identity from it and a difference in name from his family would act as a constant reminder of the factum of adoption and expose the child to unnecessary questions hindering a smooth, natural relationship between him and his parent (Para 11-14)Surname - A surname refers to the name a person...

A Relief For Which No Prayer Or Pleading Was Made Should Not Be Granted : Supreme Court

Ashok KM

Tags