SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1995 Supreme(P&H) 164

SAROJNEI SAKSENA
Asha Rani – Appellant
Versus
Gulshan Kumar – Respondent


Judgment

1. The appellant-wife has filed this appeal under S. 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act (in short the Act).

2. Unassailed facts are that the appellant was married to the respondent on 1-10-1989. She was earlier married to Rajinder Kumar son of Devi Dayal of village Jandiala near Nakodar.

3. The respondent filed a petition under Ss. 11 and 12 of the Act alleging that when his marriage was performed with the appellant as per Hindu rites and rituals, at that time, he was not informed by the appellant or by her parents that she was already married to one Rajinder Kumar, who is still alive and the marriage is subsisting. The appellant lived with him for one month. In January, 1990 he came to know of her earlier marriage with Rajinder Kumar. He immediately left the appellant at her parental home. Since then she is residing there. If at the time of marriage he would have known that the appellant was a married woman and her former husband is alive, he would have not consented to marry her. Thus by concealing this material fact, his consent to marriage was obtained by fraud. The respondent visited the appellants parental home and on his protest, the appellants father assured him to settle










Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top