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

2015 Supreme(All) 3814

PANKAJ MITHAL
Nainsee – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Prakash, Veer Tripathi
For the Respondent: C.S.C. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava

JUDGMENT

Pankaj Mithal, J.

Heard leaned counsel for the parties.

2. Petitioners are claiming protection to their married life alleging unnecessary interference and harassment by respondent no.4 despite their registered marriage.

3. Petitioners who have filed this petition jointly with the joint affidavit enclosing a photocopy of the marriage certificate dated 27th July 2015 issued by the Registrar, Hindu Marriages, Basti.

4. The marriage certificate mentions12th May 1995 as the date of birth of petitioner no. 1.

5. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no. 4 a copy of High School mark sheet of petitioner no. 1 has been enclosed which mentions her date of birth as 16.5.1998.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners accepts the above High School certificate that the date of birth as mentioned therein to be correct.

7. In view of the above High School certificate the date of birth of the petitioner is 16.5.1998 and not 12.5.1995 as mentioned in the marriage certificate.Therefore, petitioner no. 1 is a minor not entitle to marry legally.

8. The Registrar, Hindu Marriages, Basti is present in the Court. He submits that the office was satisfied about the date of birth of pe













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