Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1424 (TS)

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX v. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

2025-11-07

K.LAKSHMAN, VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY

body2025
JUDGMENT : K. LAKSHMAN, J. 1. Heard Ms.T.V.Sridevi, learned counsel for the appellant. Notice sent to the respondent was returned unserved with an endorsement ‘left’. Sending notice to the respondent to the address available is sufficient in terms of Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. There is no representation on behalf of the respondent. We have recorded the said fact vide order dated 29.10.2025. We have perused the record. 2. Appellant is the husband and respondent is the wife. Their marriage was performed on 15.11.2013 as per Hindu rites and customs. It is contended that it is a second marriage for both of them. Appellant has filed an application under Section 12(2)(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 vide F.C.O.P.No.34 of 2014 on the file of learned the Judge, Family Court, Hyderabad, against respondent/wife to declare the said marriage as nullity and to annul the same by way of decree, contending that she had left the company of the appellant on the same day of marriage i.e., on 15.11.2013 saying that she is not interested in the marriage. On 16.11.2013 the appellant and his parents made several phone calls to the aunt of the respondent i.e., Smt.Vijaya Lakshmi to enquire about respondent’s position, who sought some time as the respondent is not interested to join the marital life of the appellant. Appellant waited ten (10) days with a hope that respondent will join him and lead marital life. Thereafter, appellant, his parents along with Smt.Anuradha and elders went to the house of the respondent parents’ to discuss about the issue and they had lengthy discussion with her mother’s sister and her husband. Ultimately, appellant came to know that respondent was not there in their house. Therefore, appellant and his parents asked the respondent parents’ to solve the issue amicably. Even then, there is no response. Therefore, he has filed the said application to declare the said marriage as nullity. 3. To prove the said allegations, appellant/husband himself examined as PW.1 and filed Ex.P.1 – marriage certificate and Ex.P.2 – marriage photo. Respondent/wife remained ex parte. On consideration of the said evidence, vide the impugned order dated 15.09.2014, learned Family Court dismissed the said O.P. holding that the marriage was held on 15.11.2013, appellant/husband has filed the said application on 13.12.2013, within one month after the marriage. Respondent/wife remained ex parte. On consideration of the said evidence, vide the impugned order dated 15.09.2014, learned Family Court dismissed the said O.P. holding that the marriage was held on 15.11.2013, appellant/husband has filed the said application on 13.12.2013, within one month after the marriage. He can’t file the said application seeking dissolution of marriage within one year. Therefore, to get over the said bar, he has filed the aforesaid application under Section 12(2)(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, to declare the said marriage as nullity. 4. Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 deals with voidable marriages, it is relevant and it is extracted below: “12. Voidable marriages .— (1) Any marriage solemnised, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, shall be voidable and may be annulled by a decree of nullity on any of the following grounds, namely:— (a) that the marriage has not been consummated owing to the imporence of the respondent; (b) that the marriage is in contravention of the condition specified in clause (ii) of section 5; (c) that the consent of the petitioner, or where the consent of the guardian in marriage of the petitioner [was required under section 5 as it stood immediately before the commencement of the Child Marriage Restraint (Amendment) Act, 1978 (2 of 1978)], the consent of such guardian was obtained by force [or by fraud as to the nature of the ceremony or as to any material fact or circumstances concerning the respondent]; (d) that the respondent was at the time of the marriage pregnant by some person other than the petitioner. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), no petition for annulling a marriage— (a) on the ground specified in clause (c) of sub-section (1) shall be entertained if— (i) the petition is presented more than one year after the force had ceased to operate or, as the case may be, the fraud had been discovered; (ii) the petitioner has, with his or her full consent, lived with the other party to the marriage as husband or wife after the force had ceased to operate or, as the case may be, the fraud had been discovered; (b) on the ground specified in clause (d) of sub-section (1) shall be entertained unless the court is satisfied— (i) that the petitioner was at the time of the marriage ignorant of the facts alleged; (ii) that proceedings have been instituted in the case of a marriage solemnised before the commencement of this Act within one year of such commencement and in the case of marriages solemnised after such commencement within one year from the date of the marriage; (iii) that marital intercourse with the consent of the petitioner has not taken place since the discovery by the petitioner of the existence of [the said ground.” 5. Referring to Section 12(2)(b)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the case of the appellant is falling in the said category. But it says that notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), no petition for annulling a marriage on the ground specified in clause (d) of sub-section (1) shall be entertained unless the court is satisfied that marital intercourse with the consent of the appellant has not taken place since the discovery by the appellant of the existence of the said ground. 6. Perusal of the petition filed by the appellant in F.C.O.P.No.34 of 2014 would reveal that he has not pleaded the said ground seeking nullity of the said marriage. As discussed supra, he filed the aforesaid petition contending that the respondent left his company on the date of marriage itself and despite several efforts made by him he could not get the respondent to his company. Panchayat was also held in December, 2013. Therefore, the case of the appellant is not falling within the aforesaid category. On consideration of the said aspects only, learned Family Court dismissed the aforesaid O.P. filed by the appellant herein. 7. Panchayat was also held in December, 2013. Therefore, the case of the appellant is not falling within the aforesaid category. On consideration of the said aspects only, learned Family Court dismissed the aforesaid O.P. filed by the appellant herein. 7. As rightly observed by the learned Family Court, to get over from the bar under Section 14 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, appellant had filed the aforesaid O.P. under Section 12(2)(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking nullity of the said marriage. It is a reasoned order and there is no error in it. Appellant failed to make out any case to interfere with the impugned order. 8. In the light of the same, this appeal is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, it is dismissed. However, liberty is granted to the appellant/husband to take steps in accordance with law. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.