Prahlad Singh v. Seema@Vidhya

1. Exemption allowed,subjectto alljustex^

2. The application stands disposed of! MAT.APP(r.C.I330/2018' "

3. The present appeal is directed against the order dated 25.10.2018 by which an application filed by the appellant(husband)under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) has been dismissed.

4. The brieffacts ofthe case necessary to decide the present appeal are that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 05.05.2009. MAT.APP(F.C.)No.330/20I[8] PageIof[3] 2018:DHC:9277-DB Outofthe wedlock,afemale child was bom who is atpresentresiding with the mother. On account ofa marital discord,the appellant filed a petition seeking grant of divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) on the ground ofcmelty which was subsequently withdrawn. Itis the case of the appellant that respondent had a living spouse, namely, Shri Praveen Kumar on the date ofher marriage with the appellant. The appellant alleged that the respondent without obtaining divorce from her earlier husband, had got married with him. On coming to know the actual position with regard to ah earliermarriage,a petition under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, seekihg nullity of the marriage,was filed. Durmg the pendency qfthe aforesaid petition,an application under Order 12 Rule 6 CP'C was filed on the ground that v.;':-. ^ wife had not sought divorce fromfherjffirst marriage and,accordingly, marriage performed with tfie'appella'nt'fierein would be anullity.

5. In reply to the application, the respondent/wife had stated that the marriage bet\veen her:-ahd.,the'':appdllarit, was performed with full knowledge ofrelevantfhc|§^|p|||hp^J|^ customarydivorce as permissible in the'Jaaf CommuniFyto which the respondent belongs and thatshe would sinnmonrelevant witne§s,es duringthetime oftrial. The Family Courthas dismiissSlFhelplpifcation onthe groundthatthe issue can only be decided upon recording ofevidence.

6. Teamed counsel for the appellant has strongly urged before the Court that the customary divorce is not recognized as per law and,thus, no purpose would be achieved in delaying final outcome in the matter.

7. We have heard the leamed counselfor the appellant. MAT.APP(EC.)No.330/2018 Page2of[3] > r We find no infirmity in the order passed by the Family Court; the Family Court has rightly dismissed the application under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC as the issue involved has far reaching consequence and can be decided only on evidence. We may also note that out ofthe wedlock, a female child was bom and any haste/decision would have far reaching consequence not only on the parties but also on the daughter ofthe parties. Thus,it would be appropriate thatthis issue is decided upon conclusion ofevidence. Resultantly, we find no merits in the appeal and is,accordingly,dismissed. We make it clear that we:haye hotexpressed any dpinibn onthe merits of the matter and thie Family-'Couft' wb^^ decide the same in <•', I < ■■ / accordance with law.

DECEMBER 21,2018 ssc 'X/V r j. « no.,, ' 3 I ^ ^ \ r f > iT,^ 1 ^15115' Hffs- G.S.SISTANI,J. JYOTISINGH,J MAT.APP(EC.)No.330/2018 Page3of[3]