LAWS(SC)-1989-3-68

LATA KAMAT Vs. VILAS

Decided On March 29, 1989
(Smt.) Lata Kamat Appellant
V/S
VILAS Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal after leave has been filed by the appellant wife arising out of a decree under S. 12(1)(d) of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), a decree declaring the marriage a nullity.

(2.) The respondent husband instituted a petition on 7th March, 1984 for a declaration that the marriage of the respondent with the appellant wife was a nullity under sub-sec. (1), sub-clause (d) of S. 12 of the Act on the ground that appellant, the wife at the time of marriage with the respondent was pregnant by some one other than the respondent. The appellant wife contested the allegations and ultimately the IIIrd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division Nagpur granted a decree in favour of the respondent by his judgment dated 3rd May, 1985 declaring the marriage to be a nullity.

(3.) The appellant wife filed a regular Civil Appeal No. 436 of 1985 on 19-7-1985 before the IInd Additional District Judge, Nagpur. Before this appeal could be filed, the respondent husband married one Miss Sarita daughter of Laxmanrao Modak on 27-6-1985, and in the appeal filed by the appellant, the respondent raised a preliminary objection contending that after passing of the judgment and decree dated 3-5-1985 by the trial Court he has married Sarita daughter of Laxmanrao Modak on 27-6-1985. It was further alleged in the application that this marriage was solemnised on 27-6-1985 when there was no impediment against the respondent husband which could come in his way for contracting this marriage as the parties were relegated to the position as if they were not married and therefore this marriage performed on 27-6-1985 of respondent with Sarita was legal and valid and the consequence of this is that the appeal filed by the appellant was not tenable having been rendered infructuous. The IInd Additional District Judge, Nagpur vide his order dated 17-8-1985 allowed the objection of the respondent and dismissed the appeal as infructuous with a direction to the parties to bear their own respective costs.