REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

Sanjay Chudhary Appellant

V/S

Guddan @ Usha Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

CANADA SUGAR REFINING CO. VS. R. [REFERRED TO]
POPPATLAL SHAH VS. STATE OF MADRAS [REFERRED TO]
ATTORNEY GENERAL VS. BASTOW [REFERRED TO]
ARTEMIOU VS. PROCOPIOU [REFERRED TO]
LUKE VS. IRC [REFERRED TO]
RAVULU SABBA RAO VS. COMMR OF INCOME TAX MADRAS [REFERRED TO]
KANAI LAL SUR VS. PARAMNIDHI SADHUKHAN [REFERRED TO]
M PENTIAH VS. MUDDALA VEERAMALLAPPA [REFERRED TO]
GOVINDLAL CHHAGANLAL PATEL VS. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE GODHRA [REFERRED TO]
D R VENKATACHALAM VS. DEPUTY TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER [REFERRED TO]
PUNJAB BEVERAGES PVT LIMITED CHANDIGARH MANAGEMENT OF HINDUSTAN COPPER LIMITED VS. SURESH CHAND:N K SAXENA [REFERRED TO]
SOM PRAKASH REKHI VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE VS. MOHAMMAD MOHAMMAD KHAN [REFERRED TO]
K P VARGHESE VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER ERNAKULAM [REFERRED TO]
BABAJI KONDAJI GARAD BABASAHEB RAJARAMJI DAMPURIKAR VS. NASIK MERCHANTS CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD [REFERRED TO]
R S NAYAK PADMAKAR BALKRISHNA SAMANT VS. A R ANTULAY:ABDUL REHMAN ANTULAY [REFERRED TO]
PHILIPS INDIA LIMITED STATE BANK OF INDIA VS. LABOUR COURT MADRAS:CENTRAL GOVERNMENT LABOUR COURT [REFERRED TO]
GIRDHARI LAL AND SONS VS. BALBIR NATH MATHUR [REFERRED TO]
OSMANIA UNIVERSITY TEACHERS ASSOCIATION VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. FILIP TIAGO DE GAMA OF VEDEM VASCO DE GAMA [REFERRED TO]
SUBASH KUMAR VS. PRINCIPAL OFFICER MERCANTILE MARINE DEPARTMENT MADRAS [REFERRED TO]
RISHABH AGRO INDUSTRIES LIMITED VS. P N B CAPITAL SERVICES LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
HARBHAJAN SINGH VS. PRESS COUNCIL OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
PADMASUNDARA RAO DEAD VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [REFERRED TO]
GRASIM INDUSTRIES LIMITED VS. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS BOMBAY [REFERRED TO]
MAULAVI HUSSEIN HAJI ABRAHAM UMARJI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [REFERRED TO]
ASSOCIATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND RESEARCH VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
INDEPENDENT THOUGHT VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. [REFERRED TO]
HARDEV SINGH VS. HARPREET KAUR [REFERRED TO]
DR. JAISHRI LAXMANRAO PATIL VS. THE CHIEF MINISTER & ORS [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Anil Kumar Mehrotra, assisted by Shri Srijan Mehrotra and Shri Ashwani Kumar Patel, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Gaurav Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent.

(2.) Present appeal has been filed under Sec. 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, arising from the judgement and order dtd. 23/2/2018 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Gautam Buddha Nagar, in Suit No. 794 of 2013 (Sanjay Chudhary v. Guddan @ Usha), whereby declaration sought by the appellant, that his marriage with respondent, solemnised on 28/11/2004, was void, has been declined. The suit has been dismissed.

(3.) According to the facts proven before the learned trial court, the appellant was born on 7/8/1992 whereas the respondent was born on 1/1/1995. On 28/11/2004, the date of their marriage, the appellant was about 12 years of age whereas the respondent was about 9 years of age. They would have attained the age of 18 years in the year 2010 and 2013, respectively. On 5/7/2013, claiming benefit of Sec. 3 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the 'PCMA'), the appellant filed the above-described suit at age 20 years 10 months and 28 days. Initially, the suit was instituted under Sec. 12 (2) of the HMA. Later, upon amendment being allowed, direct relief was claimed under Sec. 3 of the PCMA. Relying on Sec. 2(a) of PCMA- that defines "child" and thus prescribes the age requirement for a valid marriage (like that provided under Sec. 5(3) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955- hereinafter referred to as the 'HMA'), the appellant claimed that his suit, thus filed, was within the limitation prescribed under Sec. 3(3) of PCMA. Other fact grounds were also pleaded to allege that the respondent never cohabited, etc.

Click here to view full judgment.

SANJAY CHUDHARY Vs. GUDDAN @ USHA

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address