JUDGMENT

SURESH KUMAR KAIT, J

1. The present appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1995 read with Sections 11 and 23 of the Act has been filed seeking setting aside/quashing of the judgment and decree of nullity dated 23.10.2007 in HMA No.396/2003 whereby marriage between the parties has been declared null and void.

2. The parties to the present petition were married as per Hindu rites and ceremonies on 04.12.1998 in Delhi and out of this wedlock a female child was born on 28.08.1999. The respondent-husband has preferred a petitioner to declare the marriage between the parties as void ab initio being in MAT.APP.(F.C.) 35/2023 Page 1 of 14 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed contravention of subsection 4 of Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

3. The learned trial Court while passing the impugned judgment noted the contention of respondent-husband, which in nutshell is as under:-

i. The respondent has alleged that the appellant-wife was aggressive, non-adjusting and demanding since the beginning of their marriage.

ii. The father of appellant-wife happens to be the cousin of his father.

iii. On the silver jubilee celebration of the parents of respondent-

husband, both the families agreed for marriage of appellant with respondent and engagement rings were exchanged at that celebration itself.

iv. The marriage between the parties was solemnised on

04.12.1998.

v. The respondent has claimed that he was a big support for the parents of appellant-wife. On 25.02.1999 when respondent- husband along with his father was going to their shop at Chandani Chowkj, an accident took place wherein he lost his father on the spot. The incident shook the entire family and since respondent-husband had also sustained grievous injuries, there was no one to take care of the business. The husband claimed to have fractured his leg but the appellant-wife did not support him and also her behaviour towards him and his family caused mental agony.

MAT.APP.(F.C.) 35/2023 Page 2 of 14 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed vi. The appellant-wife pressurised respondent-husband to take over the entire business and have a separate residence from his mother, however, when respondent-husband refused, she left her matrimonial home in April, 1999 on the pretext of visiting gynaecologist and did not come back till May, 1999 on the ground that there were many complications in her pregnancy and she was advised bed rest. Respondent-husband alleged that at the relevant time, he was completely on bed and his mother used to take care of the family business. Even on her return to her matrimonial house, the appellant-wife frequently quarrelled with respondent-husband to take a separate house. On 12.07.1999, she again went to her parents’ house on the ground that she needed rest and required help of her mother during pregnancy.

vii. Respondent-husband claims to have taken care of his wife during her pregnancy and hospitalisation and birth of the child. On 30.08.1999, when she was discharged from the hospital, she refused to go to her matrimonial home on the pretext that she did not want his mother and sister to touch the baby.

viii. The respondent-husband claimed that he contacted his wife on many occasions to perform rituals, customary functions after the birth of the child, however, she refused to come back to her matrimonial house.

4. In the aforesaid facts, the respondent-husband filed petition before the MAT.APP.(F.C.) 35/2023 Page 3 of 14 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed learned trial court seeking nullity of marriage with respondent under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, being in contravention of conditions specified in Clause (i) of Section 5 of the Act. The petitioner did not take grounds of cruelty while seeking divorce but stated that his relation with his wife falls within the degree of prohibited relationships, as parties were sapindas of each other. In support of his claim, the petitioner relied upon the following tree:-

MUNSHI RAM (Great Grand