IMPORTANT POINT
Custom to obtain force of law must be ancient.

V. M. Deshpande, J.—By the present family court appeal, the appellant is questioning the legality and correctness of the judgment and decree passed by the learned Judge of the Family Court, Akola in B.P.No.B1/2014 dated 30.05.2015, whereby the learned Judge of the Family Court allowed the petition filed on behalf of the respondent and declared that the marriage between the petitioner and respondent dated 17.02.2013 is null and void.

Two different proceedings were filed before the Family Court. The appellant (hereinafter referred to as the “Wife” for the sake of brevity) filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights. The said petition was registered as Petition No.152/13.

Whereas the respondent in the present appeal (hereinafter referred to as the “Husband” for the sake of brevity) filed a petition for a declaration that the marriage is null and void. The said petition was registered as B. P. No.1/2014.

2. Both the petitions were decided by a common judgment dated 30.05.2015. The petition for restitution of conjugal rights was dismissed whereas B.P.No.1/2014 filed by the husband was allowed and a decree was granted in favour of the husband that the marriage between the husband and wife dated 17.02.2013 is null and void.

3. Though the petition for restitution of conjugal rights filed by the wife was dismissed, the wife did not prefer any appeal to challenge the said dismissal. The wife is before this Court in order to challenge the decree for dissolution of marriage as granted by the Court below in Petition No. 1/2014. Facts giving rise to the present appeal are as under:-

4. The husband preferred petition under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act. According to the pleadings, earlier he was married with one Rajkanya. The said marriage was dissolved by a decree of divorce by the Additional District Judge, Delhi in Hindu Marriage Petition No.127/1999 on 11.10.2000.

It is further pleaded that a friend of the husband; Sudhir Pradhan was informed by the husband that he wishes to remarry. Therefore, the said Pradhan suggested the name of the wife to the husband. The brother of the wife called the husband at his house and in the said meeting, husband informed that he was earlier married. However, he got the decree of divorce from the Court. The marriage in between them was settled and it was solemnized on 17.02.2013 at Akola.

After marriage, the husband went to Delhi as the husband was serving as a driver in All India Congress Committee at Delhi and the wife started residing at her parent’s house.

5. On 25.04.2013, the husband had been to Akola for taking the wife to Delhi. On 29.09.2013, the wife accompanied the husband to cohabit with him at Delhi. According to the pleadings, for some days the wife cohabited with the husband properly however thereafter she started picking up quarrels with him for small reasons. Even their marriage was not consummated.

It was the insistence of the wife that she should be taken to Akola at her parent’s house. She was not ready to cohabit with the husband and therefore both came to Akola as per the wish of the wife in June 2013. It is further pleaded that the husband informed the behaviour of the wife to her parents and brother. Thereafter, the husband went to Paras, his native place. On inquiry, he got knowledge that the wife was already married with one Anant Maroti Sawadkar on 13.06.1989 and from the wedlock, she gave birth to a male child by name Guddu on 29.05.1990 and the husband also got the knowledge that the wife had not taken a decree of divorce from her first husband Anant from any competent court. It is also pleaded that the wife had filed proceedings under Section 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act against her first husband and that was registered as Miscellaneous Judicial Case No.205/1995 and it was decided on 22.06.1998 by which the wife was appointed as guardian of the minor son Guddu.

It is pleaded in the petition filed by the husba