Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 799 (ORI)

Jyotiranjan Bhoi v. Subhashree Sahu

2016-09-14

BISWANATH RATH

body2016
JUDGMENT : Biswanath Rath, J. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing the order dated 28.1.2016 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Boudh in MAT Case No.1 of 2015 thereby dismissing an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C. at the instance of the husband. 2. In assailing the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Matrimonial Case was itself barred by law in view of the provision contained under Section 25 (B) of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 and since the marriage was solemnized on 13.12.2013 as clearly appearing from Annexure-2, initiation of the proceeding since after one year from the date of issuance of the marriage certificate vide Annexure-1 following the provision under Section 25(B) of the Act is barred by law. It is alleged that the Court below has failed in appreciating the objections raised by the petitioner by moving the Order 7 Rule 11 application and thus, the impugned order is bad in law and liable to be set-aside. 3. Sri Dhal, learned counsel for the sole opposite party on the other hand, submitted that the Matrimonial Suit was filed with the prayer as follows: P R A Y E R The petitioner therefore prays: 1. For a decree declaring the so called marriage in between the petitioner and the Respondent vide Marriage Certificate No.178/2013 of the office of the Marriage Officer, Sambalpur as null and void and not binding on the petitioner and for cancellation of the marriage certificate. 2. For a decree declaring that the petitioner is entitled to be compensated for an amount of Rs.20,00,000/-for her loss and damages and to be paid by the Respondent within the stipulated period to be fixed by the Hon’ble Court and in default to be realized through the process of Court. 3. For cost of the suit.” The above prayer was based on the averments/pleadings made in the paragraph 8 of the Matrimonial Application. Since the matrimonial case was not a simple application for declaring the marriage certificate as void, it is contended by Shri Dhal, learned Counsel that the Court below has not committed any illegality in holding that the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C did not bear any merit. 4. Since the matrimonial case was not a simple application for declaring the marriage certificate as void, it is contended by Shri Dhal, learned Counsel that the Court below has not committed any illegality in holding that the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C did not bear any merit. 4. Considering the submissions made by the respective parties and after looking to the provision contained in Section 25(iii)(B) of the Act, this Court finds the provision attached only to make a marriage document as voidable. Looking to the pleadings contained in paragraph No.8 and the prayer made in the Matrimonial Application, this Court finds the Matrimonial Case at the instance of the opposite party-wife was not on sole account of declaring the marriage certificate as voidable. On the other hand, close scrutiny of the pleadings and the prayer, makes it clear that the opposite party had in fact sought for declaring the marriage as void and as a consequence to declare the marriage certificate as void based on the pleadings. Considering the above and the provision referred to hereinabove, this Court finds there is no error in the impugned order. Consequently, the Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed for having no merit. However, considering the plight of the petitioner in the original proceeding that he has been set-exparte in the meantime and to have an appropriate decision in the matter of decision, this Court feels it appropriate to permit the petitioner to file an application for restoration of the case to contest in the matter and in the event, any such application is filed within two weeks hence, as undertaken by the learned counsel for the opposite party, the application will remain unopposed as undertaken by Sri Dhal, learned counsel for the opposite party and the petitioner will be permitted to file his show-cause and will also be permitted to participate in the proceeding. This Court further directs the trial Court to look into the conditions of the parties and conclude the Matrimonial Proceeding bearing No.1 of 2015 within a period of six months from the date of restoration of the case. 5. The Civil Revision Petition stands disposed of with the above direction. In view of disposal of this petition, interim order passed earlier stands vacated.