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

2010 Supreme(UK) 212

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. Hon’ble Nirmal yadav, J.

Vikesh Sharma .. Appellant
Vs.
Shivani ..Respondent
First Appeal No. 91 of 2009
Decided on : April 23, 2010.

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Parikshit Saini, learned counsel for the appellant.
Mr. Deepak Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent.

The petition for annulling a marriage under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act must be filed within the period of limitation as provided under Section 12(2)(a)(i) of the Act.

Headnote:

Family Court Act - Nullity of Marriage - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 12

Fact of the Case:

The respondent filed a suit to declare her marriage null and void, alleging abduction, fraud, and threats by the appellant. The Family Court declared the marriage null and void. The appellant appealed, arguing that the petition was time-barred under Section 12(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petition for annulling the marriage was not maintainable as it was filed after the period of limitation provided under Section 12(2)(a)(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

Issues: The issues included the validity of the marriage, jurisdiction of the Family Court, and the plea of limitation.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petition for annulling the marriage was not maintainable due to being filed after the period of limitation provided under Section 12(2)(a)(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the judgment and order of the Family Court were set aside, and the petition for annulling the marriage was dismissed on the ground of maintainability.

JUDGMENT

Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J.


This appeal, under section 19 of Family Court Act, 1984, has been preferred by Vikesh Sharma, the husband, against the judgment and order dated 25-11-2008, passed by Judge, Family Court, Haridwar, in Case No. 262/2004, Shivani vs. Vikesh Sharma, under section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, thereby declaring the marriage amongst the appellant and the respondent null and void.


2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent/petitioner Shivani filed a suit before Judge, Family Court, Haridwar for declaring her marriage with Vikesh Sharma as null and void, with the allegations on 17.8.2002 she had gone out of her house to take tuition. When she did not return till late night, Vikesh Sharma came to the house of her father and told that his mother is calling Shivani. When father of Shivani went in the house of Vikesh Sharma he did not see the father and mother of Vikesh Sharma there. Therefore, on 18.8.2002, father of Shivani lodged a report at Police Station Jwalapur against Vikesh Sharma and his mother Smt. Radha Rani and a case crime No. 334/2002, U/Ss 363, 366-A I.P.C. was registered against them. After abducting Shivani, Vikesh Sharma and his mother absconded from there house and their whereabouts were not known for a month. Knowing that case has been registered against them, Vikesh Sharma obtained order dated 21-9-2002 from High Court, Nainital for arrest stay. The further allegation of Shivani is that after giving threats to her, she was presented by Vikesh Sharma before the High Court at Nainital and the High Court looking the apprehensive condition of Shivani gave her in the custody of police and also informed her father. After conducting her medical examination and recording her statement U/S 164 Cr.P.C. she was handed over to her father. According to the petitioner Vikesh Sharma got registered his marriage with her after playing fraud and giving threats to her life. The further allegation of the petitioner/respondent is that her father came to know about the fraud played with her, for the first time on 25-9-2002, when she was given in his custody. The charge sheet was submitted against Vikesh Kumar and others on 15.1.2004. Hence prayer was made in the petition for annulling the marriage between the parties.


3. The appellant/respondent Vikesh Sharma contested the suit by filing his written statement, denying the averments made in the petition. He alleged that Shivani is his legally wedded wife. They got married on 7.2.2002 at Raiwala, Dehradun and at the time of marriage Shivani was 19 years of age as per the certificate issued by C.M.O. Dehradun. The aforesaid marriage was got registered in the office of Registrar of Hindu Marriage, at Dehradun on 21.8.2002. He also alleged that he never extended any threats to Shivani to marry with him. The appellant/ respondent also took the plea that Family Judge, at Haridwar has got no jurisdiction to try the suit.


4. The petitioner also filed replication and alleged that Shivani is a minor and the marriage between the parties is void. She resides within the territorial jurisdiction of Family Court, Haridwar, hence the court has got the jurisdiction to try the suit.


5. On the basis of pleadings of parties, the Judge, Family Court framed as many as 11 issues in the suit. Thereafter parties led evidence in support of their contentions.


6. The learned Judge, Family Court, after having considered the entire material available on record and hearing learned counsel for the parties allowed the petition U/S 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act filed by petitioner/respondent Shivani and declared the alleged marriage dated 7.2.2002, which was registered before the Registrar of Marriage on 21.8.2002, as null and void, vide judgment and order dated 25.11.2008.


7. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order, the husband Vikesh Sharma has preferred this appeal before this court, which has been placed before us for final






























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
whatsapp-icon Back to top