Komal VS Mayaram

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

VIVEK RUSIA, BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI
Komal – Appellant
Versus
Mayaram – Respondent

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant: Shri Sudeep Bhargava learned counsel
For the Respondent: Shri Anirudh Saxena, learned counsel

ORDER

Vivek Rusia, J.—Appellant/wife has filed this present appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as “HMA”) against a judgment dated 12.02.2014, whereby the 3rd Additional District Judge, Ujjain (M.P.) has dismissed the suit filed under Section 12 of HMA.

02. Facts of the case in short are as under:

2.1. The marriage of the appellant was solemnized with the respondent on 21.05.2009 under Hindu customs and rituals, the appellant approached the District Court by way of an application under Section 11 and 12 of HMA seeking a decree of nullity of marriage as void or voidable on the ground that at the time of marriage, she was 15 years of age and the respondent concealed the fact that he is blindness in one eye. After marriage, she lived with her husband, but they did not consummate their marriage. Later on, she came to know that the respondent cannot see from one eye, therefore, on this ground, the marriage dated 21.05.2009 is either void or is liable to be declared as voidable.

2.2. After receipt of the summons, the respondent appeared and filed the reply that the marriage of the appellant was performed by her mother, maternal uncle and mater