Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 152 (UTT)

JYOTI GUPTA v. REGISTRAR HINDU MARRIAGE

2012-04-11

B.S.VERMA

body2012
JUDGMENT Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. (Interim Relief Application No. 3100 of 2012) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent to cancel the registration of the marriage registered as Registration No. 103 of Hindu Marriage Register, Volume No. 17, at page nos. 203/222 in the office of the respondent on 12.7.2007. 3. In earlier writ petition bearing WPMS No. 2201 of 2010, Km. Jyoti Gupta vs. Registrar, Hindu Marriage and another, the same prayer was made by the petitioner. The said writ petition was dismissed on 7.1.2011 on the ground that disputed question of fact cannot be examined in the writ jurisdiction. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that in the petition filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage, the learned Judge, Family Court has held that no marriage had been solemnized between the petitioner and one Singh Raj Pauswal, the alleged husband. 5. In Section 9 petition, which was filed by the husband for restitution of conjugal rights, no relief other than restitution of conjugal rights can be granted by the Family Court. Admittedly, the petitioner had not filed any petition under Section 11 to declare the marriage between her and said Singh Raj Pauswal as null and void. 6. It is pertinent to mention that the Allahabad High Court in the case of S.Tripathi Vs. Banaras Hindu University, 1993 (1) UPLBEC, 448, has held that filing of successive writ petitions on the same facts, apart from being abuse of process of Court is against public policy. 7. Rule 7 of Chapter XXII of the Rules of the Court, 1952 reads as under: “7. No second application on same facts.- Where an application has been rejected, it shall not be competent for the applicant to make a second application on the same facts.” So far as the registration of marriage is concerned, in my view, only the Civil Court is the competent Forum to grant the relief sought by the petitioner in the earlier writ petition. 8. It is not disputed that in the present writ petition, the petitioner has sought the same relief, which was sought for by the petition in WPMS No. 2201 of 2010. 8. It is not disputed that in the present writ petition, the petitioner has sought the same relief, which was sought for by the petition in WPMS No. 2201 of 2010. It is also an admitted case of the petitioner that the said petition was dismissed by order dated 7.1.2011 with liberty to the petitioner to file a civil suit before the competent court. The order dated 7.1.2011 had not been assailed by the petitioner before any higher Forum. 9. It is further contended that the earlier order passed by this Court does not come in the way of the present writ petition since at present there is no dispute whether the marriage was solemnised or not. According to the petitioner there is no dispute about this fact in view of the order passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court dated 24.11.2011 passed by the Judge Family Court Meerut in the petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. It may be mentioned here that the order passed under Section 9 of the said Act is subject to appeal before the higher Forum. 10. Be that as it may, the fact remains that in the earlier writ petition, the petitioner had sought the same relief and the petitioner was given liberty to file a civil suit before the competent court, as the civil court can grant the relief to the petitioner if the registration of marriage was obtained by playing fraud on the petitioner. In view of the provision of Rule 7 of Chapter XXII of the Rules of the Court, 1952, I am not inclined to entertain the present second writ petition, which has been filed by the petitioner for the same relief as sought in earlier writ petition, referred to above. 11. The writ petition is therefore dismissed in limine.