A significant clarification has emerged on the scope of judicial authority to correct typographical errors in final decrees, particularly when such errors impede legitimate administrative claims. The Madhya Pradesh High Court has affirmed that courts possess inherent power under the Code of Civil Procedure to rectify non-substantive mistakes, ensuring alignment between judicial records and official documentation.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Smt. Soni Mahor, sought correction of her father’s name in a divorce decree passed in 2017. The decree erroneously recorded her father’s name as "Laxminarayan Mahor," while all her official documents - including Aadhaar, PAN, and High School Certificate - consistently reflect "Lachhiram Mahor." This discrepancy arose from a clerical oversight during the recording of evidence in the Family Court.
Procedural History
- 2017: Divorce decree passed under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, with incorrect paternal name.
- 2024: Petitioner filed application under Section 152 CPC before the Family Court seeking correction.
- 16.10.2024: Family Court rejected the application, holding that the error could not be rectified post-decree.
- 2024: Petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution before the Madhya Pradesh High Court.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the Family Court’s order and a direction to amend the decree to reflect the correct name, "Lachhiram Mahor," to enable her to pursue a compassionate appointment under Indian Railways, which had been rejected due to the name mismatch.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure permits correction of a clerical or arithmetical error in a final decree when the error is evident from the record and does not affect substantive rights of the parties.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel relied on Smt. Sushila Devi v. Smt. Kamla Devi and Rajendra Kumar v. State of Haryana to argue that Section 152 CPC empowers courts to correct mistakes arising from accidental slips or omissions, provided the error is purely clerical and does not involve judicial discretion. Counsel emphasized that the petitioner’s father’s correct name was consistently documented in school records, railway service files, and government IDs, and that the error had no bearing on the validity of the divorce decree.
For the Respondent
The respondent did not appear or file any written submission. The Court noted that no opposition was raised to the correction request, and no prejudice to the respondent’s rights was alleged.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the nature of the error and its impact on the decree’s enforceability. It held that the misrecording of the father’s name was not a judicial determination but a mechanical oversight, as evidenced by the consistent use of "Lachhiram Mahor" across all official documents. The Court observed that Section 152 CPC is designed precisely to address such situations, ensuring that technical inaccuracies do not derail legitimate rights.
"The correction sought is not to alter the substance of the decree but to align the record with the undisputed facts already on record and in official documents. Such an error, if left uncorrected, would perpetuate administrative injustice."
The Court distinguished this from cases where parties seek to re-open substantive findings, noting that no challenge was made to the divorce itself, nor was there any dispute over paternity or identity. The Family Court’s refusal to correct the error was found to be contrary to the spirit of Section 152 CPC and the principle of nemo judex in causa sua - no one should suffer due to a court’s own clerical mistake.
The Verdict
The petitioner succeeded. The Court held that Section 152 CPC authorizes correction of clerical errors in decrees when the mistake is evident from the record and does not affect substantive rights. The Family Court was directed to amend the decree to reflect the correct name of the petitioner’s father.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Clerical Errors Are Correctable Post-Decree
- Practitioners may now confidently invoke Section 152 CPC to rectify typographical errors in divorce, maintenance, or custody decrees where the error is demonstrably clerical.
- Evidence of consistent usage in official documents (Aadhaar, PAN, school records) strengthens the case for correction.
Administrative Consequences Are Legally Relevant
- Courts must consider the real-world impact of clerical errors on beneficiaries’ access to government benefits, pensions, or employment.
- Rejection of correction applications on grounds of "finality of decree" without examining the nature of the error is legally unsustainable.
No Need for Fresh Suit or Appeal
- Correction under Section 152 CPC is a summary remedy; petitioners need not file a fresh suit or appeal to rectify such errors.
- Writ jurisdiction under Article 227 may be invoked if the lower court refuses correction despite clear evidence of clerical error.
