Smt. Arti Srivas vs Rajkumar
2024 Latest Caselaw 20803 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Smt. Arti Srivas vs Rajkumar on 1 August, 2024

Author: Vivek Rusia

Bench: Vivek Rusia

                                                         1                                FA-93-2012
                            IN    THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                            AT GWALIOR
                                                    BEFORE
                                       HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
                                                       &
                                  HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI
                                                ON August 1, 2024
                                               FIRST APPEAL No. 93 of 2012
                                                    SMT. ARTI SRIVAS
                                                          Versus
                                                      RAJKUMAR
                         Appearance:
                               None for the appellant.
                               Shri Prem Singh Bhadouriya & Shri Trishant Mishra, learned counsel
                         for the respondent.

                                                           ORDER

Per: Justice Vivek Rusia

1. The appellant-wife has filed this appeal against the judgment dated November 29, 2011 passed by District Judge Bhind and the order dated January 30, 2012, whereby the review petition has been dismissed.

2. The marriage of the appellant and respondent was solemnized on

June 14, 2005, under Hindu customs and rituals. The date of birth of the appellant is September 18, 1990, and at the time of marriage, she was 14 years and 9 months of age. Therefore, the said marriage was prohibited under the provisions of Bal Vivah Pratishedh Adhiniyam. The appellant and respondent both submitted applications along with an affidavit before the Family Court seeking a declaration of marriage dated June 14, void. In a

2 FA-93-2012 judgment dated November 29, 2011, the learned district judge declared the marriage void. Thereafter, the appellant preferred a review petition under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, stating that no order has been passed in respect of permanent alimony and the return of Streedhan. The said application was dismissed as there was no error apparent on the face of the record. Hence, this appeal is before this Court.

3. Heard.

4. The appellant is not aggrieved by the dissolution of marriage. In the application for dissolution of marriage, no such prayer was made for the return of Streedhan or the payment of permanent alimony. Therefore, the learned court has declared the marriage void because, at that time, the appellant was a minor. Since the marriage itself has been declared void, the

appellant is not entitled to any permanent alimony.

5. The appeal, being devoid of merit, is, accordingly, dismissed.

                                  (VIVEK RUSIA)                            (RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI)
                                      JUDGE                                        JUDGE


                         (and)