SAROJNEI SAKSENA
Asha Rani – Appellant
Versus
Gulshan Kumar – Respondent
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
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.