Delhi High Court
Meenakshi Sharma vs Ravi Kumar on 9 July, 2018
$~2
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment: 09thJuly, 2018
+ MAT.APP.(F.C.) 189/2017
MEENAKSHI SHARMA ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. D. K. Sharma, Advocate.
versus
RAVI KUMAR ..... Respondent
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
G.S.SISTANI, J. (ORAL)
1. The present matrimonial appeal has been filed by the appellant under
Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 against the impugned order
dated 27.03.2017 whereby the petition filed by the
respondent/husband under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act,
1955 (hereinafter referred to as „HMA") was allowed. Consequently, a
decree was passed declaring the marriage between the parties dated
03.03.2014 as Null and Void.
2. The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was
solemnized on 03.03.2014. On account of marital discord between the
parties led to the filing of the petition in the month of April, 2015
under Section 12 of HMA seeking a declaration that the marriage
between the parties be declared as null and void for the reasons that as
on the date of marriage i.e. 03.03.2014 the respondent (appellant
herein) was having a living spouse. The petition discloses that the
marriage between the appellant and one Manoj Kumar was
solemnized on 06.05.2011. On 05.06.2011, with the intervention of
respectable persons of the society in the presence of the family
members of the parties an agreement was reduced into writing and
signed by 8 persons including the respective fathers of the parties to
dissolve the marriage.
3. Mr. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that
the marriage was dissolved as per customs and thus the order of the
Principal Judge, Family Court is liable to be set aside.
4. We may note that during the pendency of the petition filed under
Section 11 of the HMA by the respondent herein, an application was
filed under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
(hereinafter referred to as „CPC‟) for passing a decree on admissions
and the Principal Judge, Family Court issued notice in the matter.
Reply was filed and the respondent (Appellant herein) was also
examined under Order 10 CPC. During the statements so recorded,
the wife had admitted that her first marriage was performed on
16.05.2011 and dissolved on 05.06.2011 by mutual compromise. The
Principal Judge, Family Court had also noticed that the document so
executed was a compromise whereby either of the parties would not
interfere in the life of each other in future. Mr. Sharma, learned
counsel for the appellant has laboured hard to contend that the
marriage between the parties stood dissolved by an agreement dated
05.06.2011 and thus the impugned order is liable to be set aside. It is
further contended that the parties were known to each other and the
factum of the earlier marriage was well known to the respondent and
thus the respondent cannot take benefit of the fact that there was no
decree of divorce. In our view the submission made by the counsel
for the appellant cannot be accepted in view of Section 11 read with
Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Section 11 reads as
under:
Section 11 - Void marriages - Any marriage solemnised
after the commencement of this Act shall be null and
void and may, on a petition presented by either party
thereto 11 [against the other party], be so declared by a
decree of nullity if it contravenes any one of the
conditions specified in clauses (i) , (iv) and (v) of section
5."
Section 5(i) reads as under:
"Section 5 - Conditions for a Hindu Marriage - A
marriage may be solemnized between any two Hindus, if
the following conditions are fulfilled, namely :-
(i) Neither party has a spouse living at the time of the
marriage;
5. We may also note that it is not disputed that document which was
executed does not bear the signatures of either of the parties but their
respective fathers. The following explanation was rendered by the
appellant herein at the time of filing written statement which has been
extracted at para „g‟ of grounds of appeal which is reproduced below :
"G. That on 05/11/2015 the appellant filed written
statement and submitted that „the factum of first marriage
of the appellant was well known to the respondent and
his family members and relatives and this was also know
to them that the marriage between appellant and said
Manoj Kumar had been dissolved by the intervention of
the respectable members of the society and elder men of
both the parties. It was also submitted that the parents of
the appellant as well as respondent are residing in same
area for last 30-40 years and have common relations.
The uncle (Mausa) of the respondent namely Brij
Bhushan is working with the father of the appellant for
the last about 30 years in DTC and the aunt (Buaa) of the
respondent married to the cousin brother of the
appellant. Thus the families of the appellant as well as
the respondent had very close relations and were known
to each other."
6. In view of the express bar under Section 5 (i), we find that there is no
infirmity in the order passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court,
Rohini which would require any interference. Accordingly, the
present appeal and pending applications are dismissed.
7. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submits that he would
seek appropriate remedy as available to him in accordance with law
seeking maintenance and other reliefs as the parties resided together as
husband and wife.
G.S.SISTANI, J
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J
JULY 09, 2018
gr
