Delhi High Court
Anjali vs Raja on 11 November, 2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 11th November, 2014
+ MAT.APP.86/2010
ANJALI ..... Appellant
Through: Mr.Lalji Kumar, Advocate
versus
RAJA ..... Respondent
Through: Ms.Anshu Priyanka, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
(ORAL)
Appellant's petition for declaring her marriage with respondent
a nullity has been dismissed by trial court vide impugned judgment of
31st March, 2010 while holding as under:-
"Moreover from the photographs Ex.RW1/2 to Ex.RW1/9, it
does not appear that petitioner was not in her senses at the
time of her marriage or that she was under influence of
some kind of intoxicant. Further the events which followed
the alleged solemnization of marriage also create doubt
regarding the case put forth by the petitioner. Even
assuming petitioner and her parents came to know of the
alleged marriage on 15.04.2008, though from above
discussion, it is apparent that concealment, if any, about the
marriage was by the petitioner herself, even then it does not
explain why neither the petitioner nor her parents made
efforts to file any complaint against the respondent. The
alleged refusal by the police officials at Dholpur and by
MAT.APP.No.86/2010 Page 1
police official of PS Kashmere Gate was never brought to
the notice of higher police authorities nor was it sought to
be redressed by filing appropriate complaint or case in the
Court, even though, the issue had direct bearing on the life
of the petitioner. Thus, the case put forth by petitioner does
not inspire any confidence and there are considerable
discrepancies in statement of the witnesses as well as
averments made by the petitioner to draw any conclusion
that petitioner was not in a sound and conscious mind to
give consent to marriage or that respondent had obtained
her consent for marriage by playing fraud upon her and the
petition is without any cause of action. Accordingly it is
held that petition filed by the petitioner is without any cause
of action and the petitioner has failed to prove that her
consent for marriage was taken by fraud by the respondent.
Both these issues are decided accordingly."
The factual background of this case already stands noticed in
the opening paragraphs of the impugned judgment and needs no
reproduction.
At the hearing of this appeal, after addressing some arguments
learned counsel for appellant has chosen not to press this appeal while
highlighting that the marriage in question took place in March, 2008
and that the parties have not lived together even for a single day and
there is irretrievable breakdown of marriage and so in this
background, the marriage between the parties can be dissolved. It is
submitted by learned counsel for appellant that the appellant is not
ready to live with the respondent. Learned counsel for respondent
MAT.APP.No.86/2010 Page 2
disputes that the parties have not lived together even for a single day
and asserted that they had lived together for 3 or 4 days and
respondent wants to live with the appellant.
Be that as it may. Since the learned counsel for appellant had
chosen not to press this appeal on merits, this appeal is disposed of as
not pressed while making it clear that dismissal of this appeal will not
stand in the way of appellant to avail of the remedies as available in
law to get the marriage in question dissolved on the ground of
irretrievable breakdown of marriage.
(SUNIL GAUR)
Judge
NOVEMBER 11, 2014
mb
MAT.APP.No.86/2010 Page 3
