Back
RAJAN ROY, OM PRAKASH SHUKLA
Kuldeep Singh – Appellant
Versus
Yashoda Devi – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Om Prakash Shukla, J.
1. Heard Shri Rajendra Prasad Tiwari, learned Counsel representing the appellant/husband. Although, the respondent/ wife has filed her counter-affidavit, however, none appeared on behalf of the respondent/wife at the time of final hearing.
2. The appellant/husband has filed the present appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 read with Order XIII Rule 1-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 against the judgment and order dated 01.08.2012 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow, in Original Suit No. 1411 of 2005 : Smt. Yashoda Devi Vs. Kuldeep Singh.
3. Apparently, in the aforesaid suit, the respondent/wife had sought declaration of the judgment/decree dated 08.07.2005 passed in Original Suit No. 32 of 2005 filed under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act, 1955’) by which divorce on the ground of Mutual Consent was granted, to be a nullity. Vide judgment and order 01.08.2012, the learned Family Court, while allowing the suit, has set-aside the judgment and decree dated 08.07.2005 and has held it to be a nullity, consequently, appellant/husband has been prohibited from marryin
The Family Court can nullify its own divorce decree if obtained through fraud, emphasizing the necessity of meeting legal prerequisites for mutual consent divorce.
Point of Law : Orders relating to custody of wards even when based on consent are liable to be varied by Court, if welfare of wards demands variation."
Concealment of a prior marriage constitutes fraud under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, justifying annulment of the subsequent marriage.
Exparte decree – Setting aside – Every conclusion must be well supported by adequate reasons and if issue is arising that case has not been properly dealt with, same would be relevant circumstance fo....
The principle of res judicata applies to matrimonial disputes, preventing re-litigation of previously dismissed claims of cruelty and desertion.
An appeal against a decree of divorce by mutual consent is not maintainable if the consent is claimed to be obtained through fraud or misrepresentation.
Point of law: Requirement under Section 13B(2) of Hindu Marriage Act is the “motion of both parties”.
FRAUD VITIATES EVERYTHING AND ANY BENEFIT OR ADVANTAGE ACQUIRED BY ANY PARTY THROUGH FRAUDULENT ACTS CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO BE RETAINED BY SUCH PARTY.
The Family Courts possess exclusive jurisdiction to declare matrimonial status, rendering suits maintainable even post the husband's death, affirming marriage validity standards under applicable Hind....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
