Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1259 (PNJ)

PREM LATA v. RAJINDER

2014-09-04

MUTTACI JEYAPAUL, NAVITA SINGH

body2014
JUDGMENT : MUTTACI JEYAPAUL, J. CM-20002-CII-2014 1. There is a delay of 516 days in refiling the appeal. Heard the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the appellant. 2. It has been convincingly contended by the applicant that learned counsel appearing for the applicant inadvertently kept the paper-book which was taken back for complying with certain objections, alongwith some other brief and as a result of which the delay has occasioned. 3. As it is found that the delay was neither intentional nor deliberate, the application is allowed in the interest of justice. FAO-7455-2014 4. This is a hopeless appeal preferred by the wife challenging the decree granted in favour of her husband Rajinder Kumar declaring the marriage that took place between the appellant and the respondent on 22.7.2007 as null and void. 5. The husband filed a petition under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act praying for declaration that the marriage of the respondent with the appellant on 22.7.2007 was null and void for the simple reason that the respondent who already married Bhoop Singh and thereafter one Suresh suppressed the factum of earlier marriages which were subsisting at the time when the respondent married the appellant. 6. The appellant-wife took up a plea that she was a minor at the time when she was married to the said Bhoop Singh and Suresh. It is contended that marriage of the appellant with the respondent was not null and void in the above special facts and circumstances of this case. 7. The trial Court having adverted to the evidence on record came to the conclusion that admittedly the appellant was already married to one Bhoop Singh and thereafter to one Suresh and later on married to the respondent even during the subsistence of the earlier two marriages. Therefore, the trial Court declared the marriage of the respondent with the appellant as null and void. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that inasmuch as the marriage of the appellant with Bhoop Singh and thereafter with Suresh was performed when the appellant was a minor, such marriages were null and void and therefore, the present marriage of the appellant with the respondent after she had attained majority cannot be declared as null and void. 9. We find that there is no substance in the submission made by learned counsel appealing for the appellant. 9. We find that there is no substance in the submission made by learned counsel appealing for the appellant. The respondent has specifically stated that the appellant was already given in marriage to one Bhoop Singh and thereafter to one Suresh. Neither the appellant nor her mother denied the factum of earlier marriages performed by the appellant with those two persons. The lame excuse put forth by the appellant was that she was a minor. Firstly, it is found that the appellant had not come out with any documentary proof to establish that she was a minor at the time when she married Bhoop Singh and thereafter Suresh. Secondly, the telling material produced in the form of a sworn affidavit of the appellant (Ex. P1) would go to show that even when the appellant married Bhoop Singh, the appellant had specifically stated that she was 18 1/2 years old. In fact, the respondent has disproved the contention of the appellant that she was a minor at the time when she performed marriage with Bhoop Singh and thereafter with Suresh. 10. In our considered view, the respondent has established that the appellant had chosen to marry the respondent when her earlier marriages with two other persons were subsisting. As per Section 5(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 neither party should have a spouse living at the time of marriage. A marriage performed in violation of the above provision is a void marriage as per Section 11 of the said Act. The trial Court has rightly declared the marriage of the respondent with the appellant as null and void under Section 11 of the Act. There is no merit in the appeal. Therefore, the appeal stands dismissed.