Neeta Kirti Desai vs Bino Samuel George

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1997 Supreme(Bom) 281

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
A.A. Desai T.K. Chandra Shekhara Das, JJ.
Smt. Neeta Kirti Desai...... Appellant.
Versus
Bino Samuel George...... Respondent.
Family Court Appeal No. 19 of 1995, decided on 24-6-1997.
Advocates appeared :
S.D. Nanavati, instructed by Nitin P. Deshpande, for the appellant.
V.G. Peshave and Miss S.G. Godbole, for the respondent.

Headnote:Sections 2, 5 and 12(1)(c)Marriage between a Hindu and Christian-Family petition filed under Hindu Marriage Act-Petition rejected-Appeal against rejection-Applicability of Act questioned? Over other communities-Held-Petition rightly dismissed-The Act not applicable to said marriage.- The Family Court Act creates a forum. The Family Court Act has not settled the rights and obligations between the parties viz., restitution of conjugal rights, judicial separation, nullity of marriage and divorce. When both the spouse are Hindus, they are regulated under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Undisputedly, petition was presented on the ground that at the time of marriage, petitioners husband was a Christian. If, that be so, having regard to the provisions of Section 2, the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 has no application for seeking any of the reliefs including the nullity of the marriage, petition, as presented, was, therefore, untenable.
Sections 2 and 12(1)(c)-Nullity of marriage-:-Petition for any Hindu wife-:-Husband being a Christian at marriage time-:-Wife alleging promise was made for conversion of husband to Christianity-Held, as husband was a Christian-Petition not tenable.-Family Court Act creates a forum. The Family Court Act has not settled the rights and obligation between the parties viz., restitution of conjugal rights, Judicial separation, nullity of marriage and divorce. When both the spouses are Hindus, they are regulated under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Undisputedly, petition was presented on the ground that at the time of marriage, petitioners husband was a Christian. If, that be so, having regard to the provisions of Section 2, the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, has no application for seeking any of the reliefs including the nullity of the marriage. Petition, was, therefore, untenable.

JUDGMENT - A.A. DESAI, J.:---The Family Court dismissed the petition of the appellant-wife seeking nullity of her marriage with the respondent. In this appeal, it is mainly contended that the marriage was solemnized by practising fraud on the appellant.

2.On 18th October, 1991, the parties married at Pune. Undisputedly, appellant-wife is Hindu, whereas the respondent by birth is Christian. According to the appellant, as a precondition of the marriage, the respondent agreed and undertook to convert himself to Hinduism. However, he has not and thus practised a fraud. The further contention is that even before the Registrar, her consent on the form was obtained by fraud.

3.The appellant has resorted to section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and alternatively to section 12(1)(c) of the said Act. Arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant is that though both the parties are not Hindus, the Family Court has jurisdiction to decide the question of nullity of their marriage.

4.The Family Court Act creates a forum. The Family Court Act has not settled the rights and obligations between the parties viz. restitution of conjugal rights, judicial separation, nullity of marriage and divorce. When both the spouses are Hindus, they are regulated under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Undisputedly, petition was presented on the ground that at the time of marriage, petitioner's husband was a Christian. If that be so, having regard to the provisions of section 2, the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 has no application for seeking any of the reliefs including the nullity of the marriage. Petition, as presented, was, therefore, untenable.

5.The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs. Certified copy expedited.

Petition dismissed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday