RAKHI Vs. KRISHNAKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The parties to this case are husband and wife; and the former sued the latter for divorce through O.P.(HMA)No.29/2023, before the learned Family Court, South Paravoor. He, however, says that, pending his application for divorce, he 'found out' that his wife - who was earlier married to another - obtained judgment dissolving her first marriage only an hour or two after they were married and hence that such marriage is void. He contends that the judgment above mentioned takes effect only after the time it was delivered; and thus applied for amendment of his pleadings, to incorporate additional grounds and plea for a declaration that the marriage is void. This was allowed by the impugned order of the learned Family Court and the petitionerwife assails it.

(2.) Sri.Johnson Gomez - learned counsel for the petitioner, argued that, as ex facie evident from Ext.P5, the learned Family Court has allowed Ext.P3 application filed by the 1st respondent, through which, two additional reliefs have been allowed to be incorporated in Ext.P2 Original Petition; and predicated that this is illegal and impermissible. He explained that Ext.P2 Original Petition was filed by the 1st respondent seeking divorce from his client, admitting that there was a valid marriage between them on 28/12/2007; but that, through Ext.P5, what he is trying to establish is that the said marriage is null and void, since his client was involved in a pre-existing marriage at that time. He argued that, it is under such misadventurous scheme that the 1st respondent asserts incorrectly in Ext.P3, that the marriage took place at 10 A.M. on 28/12/2007, so as to make it appear that his client's earlier marriage was dissolved by the learned Family Court, Kollam, only later through Ext.P6 judgment, delivered on the same day. He impressed upon us that the stratagem employed by the 1st respondent is to contend that the judgment dissolving his client's first marriage can be construed to take effect only after 11 A.M. or thereafter - such time being the hour of commencement of daily schedule of Civil Courts in Kerala - on 28/12/2007; and that, therefore, the marriage between the parties - which allegedly took place at 10 A.M. on that day - is null and void. He asserted that this argument has no forensic foundation because, the law renders it luculent that the effect of a judgment starts from the commencement of the day it is delivered and not from the time it is so.

(3.) After contending as afore, Sri.Johnson Gomez submitted that, even assuming that his afore argument cannot be accepted, the amendments are still not valid because, the original pleadings and prayers remain - through which the 1st respondent admits that the marriage is legal - but then impels another incongruous set of reliefs, maintaining that the marriage is null and void. He thus prayed that Ext.P5 be set aside.