Source:  Kerala High Court 

Why in News?

The Kerala High Court recently ruled on a review petition in a custody dispute, clarifying that a party is not estopped from challenging an order if the error was made by the court itself. The court ordered its duty to correct its own mistakes and stated that custody orders can be varied if circumstances change.  

• The case involved a father seeking custody of his child, but the court had initially granted permanent custody to the mother, subject to the father's visitation rights, based on a mediation settlement. 

What was the Background of the Amith v. Divya Case? 

• The case involves a custody dispute between a divorced couple concerning their minor child, with the father working in Dubai and the mother pursuing higher studies in Canada. 
• Initially, the couple had a mediation settlement where permanent custody of the child was granted to the mother, with visitation rights for the father. 
• After remarrying and relocating to Canada, the mother left the child with her parents in India while she continued her studies. 
• The father filed multiple applications in the Family Court seeking:  
  • Permanent custody of the child 
  • Permission to take the child to Dubai for education 
  • Interim custody of the child 
• The mother simultaneously filed cross-applications, including requests to:  
  • Take the child to Canada 
  • Modify the existing visitation rights 
• The Family Court initially dismissed some of the mother's applications and allowed the father to take the child to Dubai in the upcoming academic year, subject to certain conditions. 
• Subsequently, both parties filed original petitions challenging the Family Court's orders, leading to further legal proceedings in the higher court. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The court identified a patent error in the single judge's order, specifically noting that the original petitions' core issues regarding the Family Court's orders were not adequately considered. 
• The court stated that custody orders, whether interim or permanent, can be modified based on changing circumstances and are not immutable. 
• The bench highlighted the potential procedural complications that could arise if court records are not maintained properly, which might impede the Family Court's ability to exercise its jurisdiction in subsequent proceedings. 
• The court articulated a nuanced interpretation of the legal doctrine of estoppel, asserting that while parties accepting benefits of an order may be prevented from challenging it, this principle cannot override principles of equity and good conscience. 
• The court observed that the mother's right to seek future custody in Canada appeared to be a "windfall" obtained due to the court's error, which was not warranted based on the previous Family Court orders. 
• The bench suggested that the respondent was strategically invoking the doctrine of approbate and reprobate to sustain an unentitled benefit and prevent the review petition's consideration. 
• The court determined that when an error is committed by the court itself, there can be no valid estoppel against the party seeking to rectify that error, emphasizing the court's fundamental duty to correct its own mistakes. 

What is Estoppel? 

• Estoppel is a legal doctrine preventing a person from contradicting a previous assertion or behavior if others have relied on it to their detriment. 
• It ensures fairness and consistency in legal and personal dealings, rooted in the Latin maxim “allegans contraria non audiendus est” (a person alleging contradictory facts should not be heard). 

What are the Types of Estoppel? 

• Res Judicata (Estoppel by Record):  
  • Prevents re-litigation of the same matter between the same parties once it has been conclusively decided by a competent court. 
  • Basis in Law: Section 40-44 of the Indian Evidence Act codifies this concept. 
• Estoppel by Deed:  
  • Parties to a formal agreement or deed cannot later deny the facts it contains if they have acted upon it. 
  • Fraudulent deeds are exceptions to this rule. 
• Estoppel by Conduct:  
  • Occurs when a person's behavior or omission leads another to believe a certain fact, causing reliance.  
  • The person cannot later deny the validity of their representation. 
• Promissory Estoppel:  
  • If a person makes a promise, leading another to act upon it, they are prevented from reneging on the promise, even without formal consideration. 
  • Key Case: Central London Property Trust v High Trees House Ltd. introduced this in English law. Under Indian law, promissory estoppel extends to both private and government parties under Section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act. 

Who Can Be Estopped? 

• Tenants, Licensees, and Possessors:  
  • Tenants or licensees cannot deny their landlord’s title at the beginning of their tenancy (Section 116 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872). 
  • Even if ownership changes, tenants cannot dispute the new owner’s title during tenancy unless fraud is involved. 
• Acceptor of Bill of Exchange, Bailee, or Licensee:  
  • The acceptor of a negotiable instrument cannot dispute the drawer’s authority if the instrument is validly issued (Section 117 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872). 
  • A bailee who receives goods for safekeeping cannot dispute the title of the bailor unless a third party claims a superior title. 
• Minors:  
  • Minors, as a rule, are not bound by estoppel since contracts with minors are void ab initio. 
  • Exception: Under English law, minors may be estopped to the extent of restoring benefits received, as in Leslie v Sheill. 
• Government and Government Agencies:  
  • While governments are generally exempt from estoppel in sovereign acts, promissory estoppel can bind them in cases of clear, unambiguous promises leading to detrimental reliance. 
  • Limitations: Estoppel doesn’t apply if enforcing the promise would breach the law or public interest. 

What are the Exceptions to Estoppel? 

• Fraud or Misrepresentation:  
  • Estoppel cannot be used to protect fraudulent or illegal acts. 
  • A forged deed or fraudulent representation nullifies estoppel. 
• Competency of Parties:  
  • Parties invoking estoppel must have the legal capacity to make or rely upon the statements. 
• Public Interest and Sovereign Acts:  
  • Governments are exempt from estoppel in sovereign functions