LIVE Online Course on NDPS by Riva Pocha and Adv. Taraq Sayed. Starting from 24th May. Register Now!!
The Indian Constitution Courses

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Atmik (SMTS)     28 February 2011

Legal Divorce papers for SC

Hi,

I belong to Scheduled Caste ( Hindu-Vankar) in Gujarat State.

I got married as per caste laws in Surat ( Girl's home town) in Nov 2003. After staying together for 3 months we divorced mutually in May-2009 as per caste laws in presence of Caste Panchayat. The papers are signed on 100 Rs. stamp paper and the copy is notorised.

I recently applied for passport renewal and I am told by officer there that I need to get it stamped by Sub-registrar.

Subsequently I am told by a lawyer that in Hindu-Vankar ( Scheduled caste) it is not required to get it signed by sub-registrar. There is a clause that legalizes divorce on stamp paper.

Is it TRUE that I do not have to get it signed/stamped by sub registrar?
What is the clause that makes the divorce on stamp paper legal?

Thanks in advance for your help.



Learning

 17 Replies

Jamai Of Law (propra)     28 February 2011

Divorce in not valid.

ADV Rajesh KASRIJA (ADVOCATE)     28 February 2011

Divorce in not valid.

1 Like

Avnish Kaur (Consultant)     28 February 2011

sc kya indian laws se cover nahi hote?

such a divorce is not valid , be it any caste.

u can marry as per any community customs , but to get a legal divorce , u need to go to court.

Tajobsindia (Senior Partner )     01 March 2011

@ Author

1.
Khap (read as customary) divorce taken by parties are not valid before the eyes of Law !

Reasoning:

Read at leisure Re. Mahendra Nath Yadav Vs Sheela Devi (Supreme Court of India)

Held:  Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, ss. 9 and 13-B -A divorce got through the panchayat as per the local customs of a particular community will not be recognised by any court of law. A divorce, in order to be legalised, mandatorily requires a judicial decree from a court of law and nothing less would do. Dissolution of marriage through panchayat as per custom prevailing in that area and in that community permitted cannot be a ground for granting divorce under Section 13 of the Act, 1955. HC has rightly held that dissolution of marriage through Panchayat as per custom prevailing in that area and in that community permitted cannot be a ground for granting divorce u/s. 13 of the Act, 1955 - Moreover, in case the appellant wanted a decree on the basis of customary dissolution of marriage through Panchayat, he would not have filed a petition u/s. 13 of the Act, 1955 - Filing this petition itself means that none of the parties was of the view that the divorce granted by the Panchayat was legal - No reason to interfere with the well-reasoned judgment of the HC - Appeal dismissed

2 Like

Arup (UNEMPLOYED)     01 March 2011

there is an act the hindu marriage act. it is available in lci as well as net.read  it .

according to that customary divorce subject to prove. a complicated matter. better go for legal divorce.

1 Like

ketan (owner)     14 April 2012

SHRI TEJOSBINDIA, according your messga eonly court divorece is legal, but now d days many advocates are getting divorce to clients thru stamp paper and signed in registrar  office.one of my friend ( his first wife expired )  just married girl who is not having divorece from any but only on stamp paper , but within 12 months she left him and now she is black mailing him , and demanding huge money and saying if money will not pay she will file 498a and other cases...here in mysmall city advocate are saying that stamp paper divorce is legal..please help and solve this issue.

Thanks

1 Like

Tajobsindia (Senior Partner )     14 April 2012

@ Ketan


1. I stand by what I said here and Advocates who know family law will stand behind my previous reply too.
2. Those referred Advocates are black apples among our profession. Stamp Paper divorce is in-valid before Law.
3. You / your friend can self - help yourself by; do a ‘local sting’ operation and I feel these referred Advocates might be doing it via Notary and or via Oath Commissioner route. In either illegal case scenarios both referred Notary as well as Oath Commissioner will loose their license as well as will be asked to pay fine along with cancellation of sanad (Bar Council Membership) of these referred Advocates if with attaching “those stamp paper divorce documents” as stated in your message a proper 'complaint' is made before State's High Court Vigilance and or to the State's HC Registrar.
4. Your friend's marriage is not valid. If your friend can properly contest case of his marriage then via Court he can get divorce. Regarding S. 498a IPC he has to face for sometime the ‘music’ till he gets discharge / acquittal.


Sum - total help cometh your way is that your friend needs a lawful following Advocate in that small city. If you can reply next with name of your friend's city then among list of LCI advocates someone good may voluntarily take up case / help your friend's case locally.

1 Like

Shantanu Wavhal (Worker)     15 April 2012

@ Tajobsindia,

4. Your friend's marriage is not valid. If your friend can properly contest case of his marriage then via Court he can get divorce.

 

in this case, divorce is not applicable.

legal & valid marriage is required to get divorce.

 

@ Ketan,

ur friend should file petition u/s 11 of HMA, requesting the court to declare his marriage void.

he needs to hurry up & file the petition ASAP for the following reasons - 

1) if his wife first files any case under HMA, (RCR / Judicial separation) & then ur friend files case u/s 11, his case will be transferred to the court where wife has first filed her case.

2) if he files petition u/s 11 and then his wife files DV / 498a, it will be treated as afterthought.


in this case of void marriage, ur friend even does not need to send a legal notice to the wife.


read the highlighted pts. in the following case :


1 Like

Shantanu Wavhal (Worker)     15 April 2012

in the following case, though the wife is defaulter, 

husband had to go to Parbhani, Maharashtra all the way down from Bijapur, Karnataka because, 

the wife filed RCR first in 2001 and then the husband filed petition u/s 11.


tell ur friend to act before its too late

1 Like

Shantanu Wavhal (Worker)     15 April 2012

 

https://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/21026/

Bombay High Court

Virendrakumar S/O Gulabchand ... vs Preeta W/O Virendrakumar Runwal on 18 March, 2009

Bench: P. R. Borkar

(-1-)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

SECOND APPEAL NO. 286 OF 2008.

Virendrakumar s/o Gulabchand Runwal ...Appellant Versus

Preeta w/o Virendrakumar Runwal ...Respondent .....

Mrs. Netrali N.Gangwal (Jain), advocate for the

appellant

Mr. P.N.Sonpethkar, advocate for the respondent

.....

CORAM : P.R.BORKAR,J.

DATED : 18.3.2009.

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. This is an appeal preferred by the husband against whom Hindu Marriage Petition (H.M.P.) No. 79 of 2001 was filed by respondent wife Preeta for restitution of conjugal rights. The appellant husband filed Regular Civil Suit (R.C.S.) No. 57 of 2004 for declaration that marriage between parties is null and void and for perpetual injunction restraining present respondent Preeta Virendrakumar Runwal from claiming to be wife of the present appellant. Originally the proceedings for annulment of marriage were filed at the Family Court, Bijapur. By the order of the Supreme Court said proceeding registered as suit was transferred from the Family Court, Bijapur to the court of Civil Judge Senior Division, Parbhani and the proceedings was renumbered as R.C.S. No. 57 of 2004 filed by husband-appellant. Both (-2-)

H.M.P. No. 79 of 2001 filed by wife for restitution of conjugal rights and R.C.S. No. 57 of 2004 for declaration that marriage is null and void and injunction were heard together and decided by the common judgment by the learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Parbhani on 25.11.2005.

2. As against the common judgment and decrees passed in said two proceedings, the wife filed common appeal bearing Regular Civil Appeal No.120 of 2005 which came to be decided by the Principal District Judge, Parbhani on 3.1.2008. In para 6 of the judgment the learned Judge has referred to necessity of filing two separate appeals against decisions in two separate proceedings, namely, H.M.P.No.79 of 2001 and R.C.S.No.57 of 2004. He observed that the appeal suffers from irregularity and he gave directions regarding recovery of court fee in appeal against the decree in R.C.S. No.57 of 2004 from the appellant. The Trial Court allowed R.C.S. No. 57 of 2004 and gave declaration that the marriage between Virendrakumar and Preeta was null and void and he also granted perpetual injunction restraining Preeta from claiming herself to be wife of Virendrakumar. He dismissed H.M.P.No. 79 of 2001 filed for restitution of conjugal rights. The learned Principal District Judge, Parbhani while deciding the common appeal bearing Regular (-3-)

Civil Appeal No. 120 of 2005 on 3.1.2008 allowed the appeal and set aside the decree passed in R.C.S.No. 57 of 2004 and dismissed it and allowed H.M.P.No.79 of 2001 for restitution of conjugal rights. It is this judgment and decree which is challenged in this Second Appeal.

3. Heard Mrs. Netrali N.Gangwal (Jain), advocate for the appellant husband and Mr. P.N.Sonpethkar, advocate for the respondent wife.

4. The substantial question of law that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether respondent Preeta proved that there was custom of private divorce with mutual consent in her community and accordingly her marriage with Rajendrakumar Gilda had been dissolved.

5. So on said point this Second Appeal is admitted. The learned advocate for the respondent waives notice after admission. With consent of both sides and as per order passed by this court earlier on 3.2.2009, the appeal is forthwith taken up for final hearing and is being decided finally at admission stage.

6. Mrs. Jain, advocate relied upon the case of Yamanaji H.Jadhav vs Nirmala [AIR 2002 SC 971] and argued that there was no pleading, but during evidence the wife (-4-)

Preeta came with a case that there was custom of divorce by mutual consent and accordingly divorce-deed was executed between her and Rajendrakumar Gilda who was her first husband and after dissolution of their marriage, she remarried the present appellant Virendrakumar and as such her marriage with Virendrakumar is not void as per Section 5(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. She also argued that the custom or divorce deed are not duly proved and hence the suit of the appellant ought to have been decreed.

7. In R.C.S.No. 57 of 2004 Virendrakumar in para 4 has specifically stated that his marriage with respondent Preeta had taken place on 17.1.2001, but the marriage is invalid as the marriage of Preeta with Rajendrakumar Gilda who was her first husband was not dissolved and as such relationship as husband and wife between Rajendrakumar and Preeta continues. In para 3 of the plaint it is stated that one Sumanbai on behalf of parents of respondent Preeta proposed name of defendant Preeta. The plaintiff/appellant was given understanding that the defendant was given in marriage to one Rajendrakumar Gilda of Shahada (Maharashtra) and that defendant and Rajendrakumar Gilda could not pull on well and, therefore, divorce had taken place between them and thereafter plaintiff agreed to marry. It is further stated in para 4 (-5-)

that when respondent Preeta was staying at Bijapur, she was talking with Rajendrakumar Gilda on telephone and this conduct on the part of defendant Preeta, forced him to verify whether really there was divorce between respondent Preeta and Rajendrakumar Gilda. After thorough inquiry through relatives in Maharashtra, plaintiff/appellant came to know that marriage tie between respondent Preeta and Rajendrakumar Gilda of Shahada still subsists, as there was no valid divorce between them. In para 5 it is specifically stated that on the date of marriage of the appellant and the respondent, the marriage between respondent Preeta and Rajendrakumar Gilda subsisted and, therefore, there could not be valid marriage between the appellant and the respondent.

8. To this in para 5 of the written statement, it is stated that no particulars were given as to when and on what date there was contact on telephone between respondent Preeta and Rajendrakumar Gilda. It is denied that plaintiff made any inquiry through his relatives in Maharashtra to know whether really the marriage of respondent Preeta with Rajendrakumar Gilda was subsisting or was dissolved. It is denied that the respondent and her parents and Sumanbai suppressed the facts. It is further denied that the marriage of respondent Preeta with Rajendrakumar was subsisting on 17.1.2001 when the (-6-)

marriage of appellant and respondent took place. So simply there is assertion that there was divorce. It is not stated in the written statement as to when and how the divorce had taken place. It is not even whispered that there was any custom of divorce by mutual consent in the community of Rajendrakumar Gilda or the respondent and accordingly there was divorce between respondent Preeta and Rajendrakumar Gilda. No issue came to be framed regarding custom as there was no pleading.

9. In the case of Yamanaji (supra) the Supreme Court has laid down law in para 7 that as per Hindu law administered by Courts in India divorce was not recognised as a means to put an end to marriage, which was always considered to be a sacrament, with only exception when it is recognised by custom. Public policy, good morals and the interests of society were considered to require and ensure that, if at all, severance should be allowed only in the manner and for the reason or cause specified in law. Thus such a custom being an exception to the general law of divorce ought to have been specially pleaded and established by the party propounding such custom since said custom of divorce is contrary to the law of the land and which, if not proved, will be a practice opposed to public policy.

(-7-)

10. Learned advocate Shri Sonpethkar relied upon same case and argued that matter ought to have been remanded and opportunity should have been given to the respondent wife to plead and prove custom. In the case of Yamanaji (supra) the Supreme Court did remand back the matter to the Trial Court to frame an appropriate issue in respect of existence of provision of customary divorce in the community of parties to the proceedings. It had also granted permission to amend pleadings if parties so desire and also for leading evidence to the limited extent of proving provisions of customary divorce. However, we will have also to consider other facts mentioned in para 7 of the judgment. In that case it is observed in the earlier portion of para 7 that both courts below in that matter had erroneously proceeded on the basis that the divorce deed relied upon by the parties in question was a document which was acceptable in law. The same paragraph further discloses that in the courts below (in that matter) the parties did not specifically join issue in regard to the question of custom and the lawyers appearing for the parties did orally agree that the document in question was in fact in accordance with the customary divorce prevailing in the community to which the parties belonged, but this consensus on the part of the counsel or lack of sufficient pleading in the plaint or written statement was held not sufficient to permit the court to countenance the (-8-)

plea of customary divorce unless and until such customary divorce is properly established in a court of law.

11. In the present case there is nothing on record to show that present respondent Preeta had no sufficient opportunity either in the Trial Court or in the First Appellate Court to seek permission for amendment and incorporate pleadings regarding alleged customary divorce in her written statement. Moreover, even during evidence in court not a word about custom is stated. The learned advocates of both sides have taken me through the entire evidence of respondent Preeta at Exh.23 and her witness Abhaykumar at Exh.28. In her examination-in-chief which is in the form of affidavit not a word is said about the alleged custom and divorce. In cross-examination, however,she was put certain questions and she stated that she was of Jain Marwari community. Her marriage with appellant Virendrakumar was her second marriage. She had earlier entered into marriage with Rajendrakumar of Shahada, District Dhule and she gave birth to a daughter Preksha from first husband. She further stated that after dispute arose with the first husband she deserted him. No proceedings were filed in the court. The divorce-deed was registered. She did not know the address of the registration office in which the divorce-deed was registered. She then stated that there was custom in (-9-)

their community to give private divorce. Suggestion that there was no such divorce was denied. According to her in such private divorce, relatives of both sides hold a meeting, discuss and then divorce is given and accepted. No divorce-deed was referred to by this witness to prove the document.

12. Witness Abhaykumar in his examination-in-chief has not stated anything regarding the first marriage of respondent or the divorce between respondent Preeta and her first husband. In cross-examination he stated that he is Marwadi Shwetambar Jain. He admitted that marriage of respondent Preeta with the appellant was her second marriage. The surname of first husband was Gilda. There was divorce between respondent and her first husband. It was divorce with consent of both. Divorce was not through court. Thus not a word about custom is stated by this witness.

13. Custom is a long standing practice followed and recognised by particular community. So in the circumstances it will have to be stated as to which persons from the same community had obtained divorce as per custom, what was the custom and since when such custom was being followed. No such details are given either in pleadings or in evidence.

(-10-)

14. The learned Principal District Judge in para 9 of his judgment has observed as follows :-

" However, the petitioner has produced certified

copy of the deposition of respondent in

R.C.S.No.57/2004 along with pursis Exhibit 31. In

fact certified copy of deposition is marked

Exhibits 38 and 39. Learned Lower Court did not

take pains to go through the said deposition

produced by the petitioner. The respondent who was

plaintiff in R.C.S.No.57/2004 in his

cross-examination admitted that he had married with

defendant after due verification of divorce papers.

The petitioner has also produced copy of the

divorce deed along with list Exhibit 34. In view

of admission by respondent in his cross-examination

that he had married with petitioner after verifying

the divorce papers. Thus, respondent had knowledge

with respect to the deed of divorce and he has not

denied its execution. Therefore, usual proof for

proving the divorce deed is not required. "

Thus the learned District Judge has relied upon the certified copy of document produced with list Exh.34 in the trial Court. It is a certified copy of the registered document. It is styled as, "divorce-deed" and it states that both respondent Preeta and her first husband Rajendrakumar Gilda had decided to take divorce as per their custom and had effected divorce. This document produced with list Exh.34 is not duly proved. No question regarding the same was asked to any of the witnesses. Merely stating in the divorce-deed that there was custom is not sufficient. It will have to be proved as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Yamanaji (supra). The (-11-)

learned District Judge has curiously relied upon the certified copy of deposition of Virendrakumar recorded by the Judge, Family Court, Bijapur. The cross-examination is recorded in Kannad though examination-in-chief is in English. Translation of the cross-examination is made available by Shri Sonpethkar, advocate for the respondent. There is statement in the second paragraph of cross-examination, "It is true to suggest that I have married defendant after due verification of her divorce papers." In my considered opinion, this admission does not prove custom of divorce. It may be remembered that as stated earlier, in the plaint, itself it is mentioned in para 4 that since even after marriage of appellant and respondent, respondent was having contact with Rajendrakumar Gilda on telephone, he was forced to verify if there was really any divorce between them and thereafter he made thorough inquiry through his relatives and learnt that there was no divorce. In these circumstances, an isolated statement in the cross-examination in the deposition of appellant Virendrakumar at Bijapur cannot be used to hold that there was customary divorce. The appellant was not confronted with said admission to elicit his explanation.

15. Moreover, in the case of Yamanaji (supra) the counsel of both sides had conceded before court orally (-12-)

that there was custom of divorce and divorce had accordingly taken place, still the Supreme Court remanded the matter, allowed the parties to amend the pleadings, lead evidence and prove the customary divorce. In the present case absolutely there is no evidence to show that there was custom of having divorce by mutual consent in the community to which appellant and respondent belong. There is also no proof of divorce. Mere production of divorce deed is not enough. It is not duly proved by any witness. So in these circumstances the Principal District Judge has really committed an error in allowing the appeal and reversing the findings recorded by the Trial Court and setting aside the decree passed in R.C.S.No.57 of 2004 and allowing H.M.P.No. 79 of 2001 for restitution of conjugal rights.

16. Once it is held that divorce between respondent Preeta with Rajendrakumar Gilda as per custom is not proved, the marriage of the appellant and the respondent would be void under Section 5(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act. So petition for restitution of conjugal rights has to be rejected.

17. The parties are fighting litigation from 2001 as can be seen from the number of H.M.Petition bearing 79 of 2001 filed by the wife. It is true that in the District (-13-)

Court, respondent Preeta ought to have filed two appeals against decisions in two proceedings, namely, H.M.P.No.79 of 2001 and R.C.S.No.57 of 2004. Similarly, the present appellant ought to have filed two separate appeals; one against the order passed by the Principal District Judge in respect of decree passed in R.C.S.No.57 of 2004 for declaration that the marriage is null and void and other in respect of rejection of H.M.P.No.79 of 2001 for restitution of conjugal rights.

18. In these circumstances, in my opinion, non-filing of two appeals is an irregularity which ought to have been pointed out when the Second Appeal was registered. But no prejudice is caused to either side by their own errors. So this court entertains this common appeal and decides it. But this should not be treated as a precedent in future. Be that as it may. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Second Appeal will have to be allowed.

19. Accordingly, the Second Appeal is allowed. The common judgment and decree passed by the District Court in Regular Civil Appeal No. 120 of 2005 is hereby set aside. The decree passed by the Trial Court in R.C.S.No.57 of 2004 is restored and H.M.P.No. 79 of 2001 is hereby dismissed. However, in the circumstances of case, the (-14-)

parties to bear their own costs.

(P.R.BORKAR, J.)

dbm/sa286.08

 

1 Like

Shantanu Wavhal (Worker)     15 April 2012

 

Delhi High Court
Smt. Sunita @ Sheetal Satija vs Sh. Ram Kishan Satija on 8 January, 2010
Author: Aruna Suresh
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRP No.155/2009 & CM No.16827/2009 Date of Decision: January 08, 2010
SMT. SUNITA @ SHEETAL SATIJA .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Deepika, Advocate.
versus
SH. RAM KISHAN SATIJA ..... Respondent Through: None.
%
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ARUNA SURESH
(1) Whether reporters of local paper may be allowed to see the judgment?
(2) To be referred to the reporter or not? (3) Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?
JUDGMENT
ARUNA SURESH, J. (Oral)
CM No.16827/2009 (for exemption)
Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Application stands disposed of.
CRP No.155/2009 Page 1 of 7 CRP No.155/2009
Petitioner was initially married to one Virender Kumar according to Hindu Rites and Ceremonies. The said marriage is said to have been dissolved as per customary laws observed in that particular sect of society of Punjab, to which the petitioner belonge. Thereafter petitioner married Ajay Gupta on 28th June, 1999, according to Hindu Rites and Ceremonies. This marriage also did not survive for more than eight years and petitioner and Ajay Gupta dissolved the same by a decree of divorce by mutual consent on 14th March, 2007. After about four months of dissolution of the marriage, petitioner married the respondent on 22nd July, 2007, according to Hindu Rites and Ceremonies. This marriage is also on the rocks and parties are living separately since 16th October, 2007. Petitioner filed a petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.') seeking maintenance and a complaint under Domestic Violence Act. She also filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for restitution of CRP No.155/2009 Page 2 of 7 conjugal rights, whereas respondent filed a petition for divorce and later on converted the same into a petition for nullity of marriage.
Petitioner filed a petition under Section 24 of the Act seeking interim maintenance from the respondent. The said petition was dismissed by the Trial court vide impugned order dated 7th October, 2009. However, in pursuance of the order of the Metropolitan Magistrate passed in the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C., petitioner is getting a sum of Rs.1,000/- for rental accommodation.
The Trial Court dismissed the application of the petitioner under Section 24 of the Act, keeping in mind that respondent had disputed the legality and validity of the marriage between him and the petitioner because of petitioner having not divorced her first husband Virender Kumar in accordance with law and whether any custom is prevalent in the community, to which the petitioner belongs, any virtual contacts between the petitioner and Virender could be dissolved by the community people, is CRP No.155/2009 Page 3 of 7 a question which needed trial and could be decided only after the evidence of the parties was adduced. The Trial Court also took into consideration the fact that the petitioner had filed an application under Section 24 of the Act in the petition under Section 9 of the Act filed by her against her previous husband Ajay Gupta. The said petition was also dismissed by the Trial Court with the observation that the petitioner's marriage with her first husband Virender Kumar was still subsisting. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had challenged the order of the Trial Court, dismissing her application under Section 24 of the Act, filed in a petition under Section 9 of the Act vide CM No.13427/06. Said CM was disposed of with the observation that, observations made by the Court in the said order could not be read against the petitioner in the main petition pending at Noida Courts, in which the question as to whether there existed any such customary law for dissolution of marriage and the fact thereof would be considered. The Trial Court therefore, went wrong in CRP No.155/2009 Page 4 of 7 considering the said order passed on an application under Section 24 of the Act filed in the petition under section 9 of the Act while dismissing this application in the instant case.
These submissions are of no help to the petitioner. Obviously, the said CM was dismissed as petitioner had made a statement that she did not press for interim maintenance. Since she was aggrieved of certain observations made in the said order dated 8th August, 2006 about dissolution of her marriage by customary practice, this Court made it clear that the observations made in the order dated 8th August, 2006, impugned before the Court, would not prejudice the case of the petitioner on merits. Petition under Section 9 of the Act filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Court holding that petitioner's marriage with her first husband Virender Kumar was still subsisting. Petitioner has chosen not to place on record the certified copy of the said order of the Trial Court. Therefore, whether marriage between petitioner and Virender Kumar stood legally dissolved, as CRP No.155/2009 Page 5 of 7 per the customary law, is still an issue which needs trial and adjudication in the petition filed by the respondent seeking a decree for nullity of marriage between him and the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that it stands proved on record that marriage between petitioner and Virender Kumar stood legally and validly dissolved by customary practices when she and her second husband Ajay Gupta sought dissolution of marriage by a decree for divorce by mutual consent. These submissions cannot be entertained for the simple reason that while dissolving marriage on mutual consent of the parties filed under Section 13B of the Act, Court was not to see the merits and demerits of the case; and only that marriage between the parties to the petition had irretrievably broken down and the parties could not live together. The Trial Court, while granting divorce to the petitioner and Ajay Gupta did not consider if marriage between the petitioner and Ajay Gupta was a CRP No.155/2009 Page 6 of 7 lawful marriage in the background of petitioner having previously married Virender Kumar, whom she allegedly divorced as per the custom.
Under these circumstances, when relationship of husband and a wife is disputed and it is yet to be ascertained, if petitioner is a lawful wedded wife of the respondent, in the absence of any other evidence on record, the Trial Court rightly rejected the petition for interim maintenance. I find no reason to interfere with the observations made by the Trial Court while dismissing the application. It is of relevance that petitioner had received Rs.4,00,000/- from Ajay Gupta at the time of obtaining divorce from him. She is also getting Rs.1,000/- as rent, as per the order of the Metropolitan Magistrate passed in the Domestic Violence Act case. Hence, the petition is hereby dismissed. (ARUNA SURESH)
JUDGE
JNAUARY 08, 2010
sb
CRP No.155/2009 Page 7 of 7
1 Like

Shantanu Wavhal (Worker)     15 April 2012

filing the case first will also help ur friend to get the fake 498a / DV (if filed later on) quashed.

 

act fastttttttttttttttttt.

1 Like

Shonee Kapoor (Legal Evangelist - TRIPAKSHA)     15 April 2012

Nice thoughts Amit.

 

 

Regards,

 

Shonee Kapoor

harassed.by.498a@gmail.com

1 Like

Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register  



Post a Suggestion for LCI Team
Post a Legal Query