Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: December 05, 2023
JUDGMENT
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant challenging the order/decree dated August 08, 2023 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Central, Tiz Hazari Courts, Delhi, whereby the Family Court has in paragraphs 9 and 10 stated as under:-
2. The respondent herein has filed a petition under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 r/w Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 seeking declaration to the effect that the marriage solemnised between the appellant and the respondent on November 29, 2020 is void as it contravenes clause (i) of Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
3. The Family Court had examined the appellant herein on oath under Section 165 of the Evidence Act, 1872 in the following manner:-
4. The Family Court decreed the suit in exercise of its jurisdiction under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC, by holding that the marriage is void on the ground of unequivocal admission on the part of the appellant that she got married on November 29, 2020 to the respondent, while her marriage with Sanjay Hirani was legally subsisting. MAT.APP.(F.C.) 353/2023 Page 3
5. On a query to the learned counsel for the appellant to point out the infirmity in the order, he states that it is a fact that the marriage between the parties was solemnised during the subsistence of the marriage of the appellant with Sanjay Hirani, but the respondent being aware of the marriage of the appellant with Sanjay Hirani, the impugned decree is untenable. The submission is not appealing for the reason that this aspect was also considered by the Family Court in paragraph 8 of the impugned order which we reproduce as under:-
6. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is also by pointing out to the alternative prayer (d) which we reproduce as under, to state that this Court may consider the prayer for return of the articles and cash taken in dowry:- “In the alternate, Remand the matter to Ld. Judge Family Court, District Central, Tis Hazari to accord opportunity to the Appellant and also allow the Applicant to lead witness and also adjudicate on return of articles and cash taken in Dowry of MAT.APP.(F.C.) 353/2023 Page 4 worth 25 lacs by the Respondent from the Appellant's father at the time of the marriage.” (emphasis supplied)
7. Suffice to state, the prayer does not arise from the proceedings before the Family Court culminating in the impugned order. We also note that the proceedings before the Family Court were initiated by the respondent herein.
8. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the appeal. The appeal and the connected applications are dismissed.
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J
ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, J DECEMBER 05, 2023