The central legal point established in the judgment is that a marriage solemnized in contravention of clauses (i), (iv), and (v) of Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 shall be nullity, and the importance of proving the dissolution of a previous marriage as per the law or customs prevailing in the area.

AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.

1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant wife against the judgment and decree dated 2.8.2014 passed by the trial court, whereby the petition filed by the respondent-husband under section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short, the Act) for declaring the marriage as nullity has been allowed.

2. A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy involved as available on the record may be noticed. Marriage between the parties was solemnized on 9.12.2010 at Village Dhandewari, Tehsil Malerkotla, District Sangrur. After the marriage, the parties lived together and cohabited as husband and wife and out of the wedlock, one male child namely Rohanpreet Singh was born. From the very beginning, the behaviour of the appellant towards the respondent and his parents was very rude. She used to quarrel on petty matters. Once she poured sugar in diesel tanker of the tractor to cause monetary loss to the respondent and his family. The appellant had gone to her parental home for delivery of child. The respondent brought the appellant to attend marriage ceremony of his brother but she misbehaved with the respondent and his family members at the time of marriage. She again went to her parental home on 12.11.2012. The family members of the appellant and some other persons came to the house of the respondent and assaulted him. The matter was reported to the police. Thereafter the police got the compromise effected between the parties on 15.11.2012. Later on, the respondent came to know that the appellant was not competent to solemnize the marriage with the appellant as she was earlier married with Harminder Singh, resident of Village Khanpur, District Sangrur. She was having living spouse at the time of marriage and marriage of the respondent with the appellant was nullity in the eyes of law. The appellant and her parents did not disclose this fact to the respondent at the time of marriage. The respondent had disclosed to the appellant that he was divorcee and his first marriage was dissolved by decree of divorce dated 10.5.2003. The appellant is living separately from the respondent since 12.11.2012. The respondent filed petition under Section 11 of the Act for declaring the marriage between the parties as nullity. Upon notice, the appellant appeared and filed written statement controverting the averments made in the petition. It was inter alia stated that the respondent and his parents were informed before the marriage that she was already married and panchayati divorce had taken place between them. Baldev Singh of Village Sangala was mediator. This was the second marriage of both the parties. The fact regarding the respondent having living spouse at the time of marriage was denied. The trial court after examining the entire evidence on record allowed the petition under section 11 of the Act filed by the respondent vide judgment and decree dated 2-8-2014 impugned herein. Hence the instant appeal by the appellant wife.

3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.

4. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed the following issues:

1. Whether the marriage between the parties is nullity in the eyes of law? OPP

2. If Issue No.1 is proved, petitioner is entitled for decree of divorce under section 11 of HMA as prayed for.

3. Relief.

In order to prove his case, the respondent-husband appeared as PW1 and tendered his affidavit Ex.PW1/A reiterating his entire assertion as made by him in his petition under Section 11 of the Act. He also produced his father as PW2 who filed his affidavit Ex.PW2/A in his defence. Learned counsel for the respondent tendered into evidence copy of judgment dated 10.5.2003 Ex.P.1 granting divorce to the respondent. On the other hand, the appellant appeared herself as RW1 and placed on record her affidavit Ex.RW1/A reiterating the version of her written statement. Bhajan Singh, her father appeared as RW2 and tendered into evidence his affidav