Gujarat High Court
Mayank Satyanarayan Sharma vs Yukti Anilkumar Gautam on 7 June, 2021
Bench: J.B.Pardiwala, Vaibhavi D. Nanavati
C/CA/1405/2020 ORDER DATED: 07/06/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1405 of 2020
In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 27703 of 2019
With
F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 27703 of 2019
=========== ==== == == == == == === == == == == == == == == == == == = == ==
===
MAYANK SATYANARAYAN SHARMA
Versus
YUKTI ANILKUMAR GAUTAM
=========== ==== == == == == == === == == == == == == == == == == == = == ==
===
Appearance:
MR.SUBHASH G BAROT(2619) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED(64) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
VIRAL K SHAH(5210) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
=========== ==== == == == == == === == == == == == == == == == == == = == ==
===
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA
and
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI
Date : 07/06/2021
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA)
1. By this civil application under Order 1 Rule
8A of the Code of Civil Procedure the
applicant seeks leave to appeal against the
judgment and decree passed by the Principal
Judge, Family Court, Ahmedabad in the Family
Suit No.784 of 2018 instituted by the
respondent No.1 herein against the respondent
No.2 herein seeking a declaration as regards
the legality and validity of a deed of
divorce between the parties.
C/CA/1405/2020 ORDER DATED: 07/06/2021
2. The facts giving rise to this civil
application may be summarized as under :
2.1 A Family Suit bearing No.784 of 2018
came to be instituted by one Ms.Yukti,
daughter of Anilkumar Gautam (respondent No.1
herein) against her husband (respondent No.2)
seeking a declaration that the deed of
divorce dated 30.5.2017 Ex.4 executed between
the parties is a valid document of divorce
dissolving the marriage. The family suit came
to be adjudicated and ultimately the
following order came to be passed by the
Principal Judge, Family Court, Ahmedabad. The
order reads thus:
"ORDER
(1) This petition is allowed.
(2) It is hereby declared that the Deed of
Divorce dated 30/5/2019 produced vide List Exh.4
at M4/3 dissolving the marriage between the
parties to the petition is a valid document of
divorce and it legally snaps the relationship
between the parties, that of husband and wife. It
is, therefore, declared that they cease to be
husband and wife since then."
3. It is the case of the present applicant that
Yukti got married with Dhruvkumar (respondent
No.2) on 19.1.2017 under the Special Marriage
Act. By the deed of divorce executed between
C/CA/1405/2020 ORDER DATED: 07/06/2021
the parties dated 30.5.2017 the marriage came
to be dissolved. According to the applicant,
while the marriage of Yukti was subsisting
with him the family suit came to be
instituted seeking the declaration as
referred to above. It is the case of the
applicant that he got married with the
respondent No.1 on 31.10.2017. However,
according to him, he had no idea about the
subsistence of the marriage of the respondent
No.1 with the respondent No.2. It is his case
that his marriage with the respondent No.1
could be said to be a nullity as though the
marriage between the respondent No.1 and the
respondent No.2 is said to have been
dissolved vide deed of divorce dated
30.5.2017, still such deed of divorce not
being a valid deed of divorce, the marriage
could be said to be in subsistence on
31.10.2017. According to the applicant, he
was kept in dark by the respondent No.1 and
when he came to know about the proceedings
pending before the Family Court, Ahmedabad,
he preferred an application seeking to be
impleaded as a necessary party, but such
application came to be rejected and before he
could take any action against such order the
final decree came to be passed.
C/CA/1405/2020 ORDER DATED: 07/06/2021
4. We have heard Mr. Subhash Barot, the
learned counsel appearing for the applicant
and Mr. Viral K. Shah, the learned counsel
appearing for the respondent No.1. The
respondent No.2 although served with the
notice issued by this Court has chosen not to
remain present before this Court.
5. It appears that as on date the relationship
between the applicant herein and the
respondent No.1 have gone sour. Mr. Viral K.
Shah, the learned counsel appearing for the
respondent No.1 has brought to our notice
that the applicant herein seeking leave to
appeal has already preferred a separate civil
suit at Rajasthan seeking a decree of divorce
from the respondent No.1. According to Mr.
Barot his client should be granted leave to
appeal because the declaration which has been
given by the Family Court at Ahmedabad as
regards the divorce deed may come in his way
in the suit proceedings filed by him at
Rajasthan.
6. We are not convinced with the case put up by
the applicant seeking leave to appeal. The
Family Court, Ahmedabad has merely granted a
declaration as regards the legality and
validity of the deed of divorce between the
C/CA/1405/2020 ORDER DATED: 07/06/2021
respondent No.1 and respondent No.2 dated
30.5.2017. It shall be open for the applicant
to pursue the legal remedy already availed by
him at Rajasthan. We are of the view that no
case is made out by the applicant for the
grant of leave to appeal.
7. In the result, this civil application fails
and is hereby rejected.
8. Consequently the first appeal would also
not survive and the same stands dismissed.
(J. B. PARDIWALA, J)
(VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI,J)
K.K. SAIYED
