Sudhir Kumar vs Shrimati Mithilesh Prajapati

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Cal) 43

SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA, SUBHENDU SAMANTA
Sudhir Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Shrimati Mithilesh Prajapati – Respondent

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Sourav Sen, Mr. Shambha Chakraborty, Ms. Adrisnata Chakraborty.
For the Respondent: Mr. Amitava Mukherjee, Ms. Antara Das, Ms. Anita Das, Ms. Arpita Saha

JUDGMENT :

Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.

1. The plaintiff/husband in a suit for declaration of the marriage between the parties to be a nullity under Section 25(i) and (iii) of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 (in short “SM Act”) is the appellant before us.

2. By the impugned judgment and decree, the learned trial Judge allowed an application filed by the defendant/wife challenging the maintainability of the suit.

3. The learned trial Judge proceeded on the premise that insofar as the relief under Section 25(iii) of the SM Act is concerned, the same is palpably barred by limitation since the proceedings were instituted beyond one year after the alleged fraud was discovered.

4. Insofar as the relief under Section 25(i) of the SM Act is concerned, the learned trial Judge was of the opinion that it is evident from the written objection filed by the appellant/husband in a proceeding under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as “the DV Act”) that the parties have been residing together after the marriage. Moreover, the learned trial Judge also was of the opinion that in a previous suit filed by the husband for restitution of conjugal rights, it was