MAT.APP.(F.C.) 35/2023

Page 1 of 14

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Reserved on: August 09, 2023

Pronounced on: October 09, 2023

+

MAT.APP.(F.C.) 35/2023 & CM APPL. 23982/2015

NEETU GROVER

...... Petitioner

Through:

Mr. Prerna Arora, Ms. Devika Gupta

& Ms. Mallika Saxena, Advocates

Versus

GAGAN GROVER

.....Respondents

Through:

In

person

with

Mr.

Nikilesh

Ramachandran, Mr. Shubham Seth, &

Mr. Anuj Panwar, Advocates

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA

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

Digitally Signed

By:ROSY MUNJAL

Signing Date:09.10.2023

15:41

Signature Not Verified

MAT.APP.(F.C.) 35/2023

Page 2 of 14

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.

Digitally Signed

By:ROSY MUNJAL

Signing Date:09.10.2023

15:41

Signature Not Verified

MAT.APP.(F.C.) 35/2023

Page 3 of 14

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 pe