VIJAY N. Vs. KAVITHA KANAPARTHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is aggrieved by an order of Family Court, Bangalore, whereby, I.A.No.8 was allowed and the defence raised in paragraph Nos.2 to 6 of the statement of objections was held as barred by principles of res judicata and was struck down.

(2.) The respondent has filed, on 18.03.2008, M.C. No.811/2008, under S.13(1)(i)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act'), against the petitioner, in the Family Court at Bangalore, to pass a decree of divorce and dissolve the marriage solemnized on 18.11.2002 and registered on 20.11.2002, in the Office of the Sub-Registrar, Gandhinagar, Bangalore. The petitioner being the first respondent in the said case, filed statement of objections on 19.11.2011. Affidavit in lieu of the evidence of respondent was filed and on 19.06.2013, she was partly cross-examined. On 02.09.2013, I.A.No.8 was filed, under S.11 read with S.151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to strike down the defence raised in paragraph Nos.2 to 6 of the statement of objections filed to the main petition. I.A.No.8 was allowed on 29.10.2013.

(3.) The petitioner had filed O.S.No.105/2007 against the respondent, in the Family Court at Bangalore. The suit was decreed on 26.02.2008, by declaring the Certificate of Registration of Marriage dated 20.11.2002 issued by the Registrar of Marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 as null and void. The respondent having questioned the said decree, in MFA No.8813/2008, the appeal was allowed on 07.06.2011 and the impugned judgment and decree was set aside, on the ground that, as provided under S.12(1)(c) and S.12(a)(i) of the Act, the suit ought to have been filed within one year from the date on which the plaintiff came to know of the alleged fraud and the Family Court having not considered the said provision and also the suit having been filed on 21.07.2007 i.e., more than 6 months after the lapse of the period of one year, was not maintainable.