LAWS(CHH)-2020-9-18

RASHMITA PATEL Vs. VIVEKANAND PATEL,

Decided On September 24, 2020
Rashmita Patel Appellant
V/S
Vivekanand Patel, Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and decree dated 06.11.2017 passed by the Family Court, Raigarh in Civil Suit No. F-66 A/2017, by which learned Family Court has granted a decree of divorce by mutual consent.

(2.) Perusal of the impugned order reveals that the appellant was married to the respondent on 19.04.2016. An application, purporting to be joint application, was submitted before the Family Court on 04.05.2017 seeking decree of divorce by mutual consent, as provided under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act. In that application, it was stated that their marriage was solemnized on 19.04.2016. After marriage, the appellant/wife went to maternal house on 26.04.2016, but thereafter, she did not come back nor resided with her husband. It was pleaded that the parties no longer find themselves in a position to restore marital relationship and have decided, without any pressure and out of their own free will, to part ways towards that end. They have jointly moved application for grant of decree of divorce by mutual consent. After expiry of six months, the learned trial Court recorded the evidence of both the parties and then recorded a finding that the parties have been living separately for one and half year and there is no possibility of restitution of their marital relationship and that marriage is irretrievably broken and that both the parties for that reason, are inclined to break the marital relationship, granted decree of divorce by mutual consent vide impugned judgment and decree dated 06.11.2017.

(3.) The aforesaid judgment decree, however, has been challenged on the sole ground that the decree has been obtained by fraud, inasmuch as, the appellant/wife never participated in the proceedings, she never appeared, never signed any pleadings, affidavit etc. and the respondent/husband, in order to somehow get a decree of divorce, presented an imposter who falsely impersonated the appellant before the Court and thus succeeded in his mischievous and fraudulent design to obtain decree of divorce.