The main legal point established in the judgment is that a petition under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act should generally be filed within a reasonable period after the date of marriage, not exceeding three years, depending on the facts and circumstances of each case. The intention of a party and the circumstances of the case are relevant factors in determining the validity of the petition.

M.M.S. BEDI, J.

1. Jaswinder Singh appellalnt is aggrieved by dismissal of his petition for annulment of marriage with Manjit Kaur respondent vide judgment and decree dated March 4, 2015 passed by Family Court, Ambala. The appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act to set aside the impugned judgment and decree and seeks a declaration that his marriage with respondent which was solemnized on December 12, 1997 be declared a nullity.

2. Briefly stated the facts pleaded by the appellant-husband in his petition are that his marriage with respondent was solemnized on December 12, 1997 according to Sikh rites. The appellant and respondent cohabited together as husband and wife and one male child Darshdeep was born out of said wedlock on July 6, 1999. The appellant levelled allegations of maltreatment and cruelty against the respondent. During the period of 14 years of marriage, they had lived together for a period of six months under one roof and for the last more than 10 years they had been residing separately in separate rooms in the house of the appellant. The allegations have been levelled against the respondent for not performing the matrimonial duties and causing mental and physical cruelty. It has been averred in the petition that respondent had deserted the appellant in the same house. An allegation has been levelled that respondent was already married at the time of marriage with the present appellant, with one Ravinder Singh on March 4, 1992, at Chandigarh but she did not disclose the said fact to the appellant regarding her earlier marriage. It is further averred in the petition that respondent had played a fraud with the appellant as she was already married with Ravinder Singh which fact was not disclosed to the appellant as well as to his parents. It was informed that respondent was youngest daughter of her parents whereas the respondent was having a younger sister who was also married. It was further averred that respondent had obtained divorce from her earlier husband on January 29, 1998 after the solemnization of marriage with the appellant, by the Court of Sh.Amar Dutt, the then District Judge, Chandigarh, in case “Manjit Kaur Vs. Ravinder Singh @ Lalli”, as such there was concealment of fact by the respondent regarding her earlier marriage which has caused mental torture to the appellant as well as his family members as such decree for annulment of marriage was prayed for.

3. The respondent contested the petition for nullity claiming that son of the parties was studying in 10th class and the respondent was also residing in the same house. The petition was a counter-blast to an application filed by the respondent under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. As a matter of fact, the appellant was humiliating and harassing the respondent on account of insufficient dowry having been brought by her. The appellant has given wrong title of the petition by showing the name of the previous husband of the respondent who had already obtained divorce and all facts were well within the knowledge of the appellant. On merits, the petition has been contested on the ground that at the time of solemnization of marriage, sum of Rs.5 lacs was spent on the marriage and valuable dowry articles had been given to the appellant and his family members. The respondent wife admitted to have filed a petition under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 but the allegations of cruelty by her stand denied. The respondent has submitted that everything was disclosed to the appellant about her previous marriage prior to her marriage with appellant. The marriage with appellant is valid and it was solemnized with due knowledge of the appellant and his family members including the relations. The appellant was having all papers of divorce which he had not disclosed in the present petition. The appellant with his free consent had agreed to the re-marriage with the respondent as such th