SHASHANK PANDEY Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The submissions of Sri Shailendra Singh Rajawat, the learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Anurag Verma, the learned AGA-I appearing for the State were heard on 18/1/2024 and judgment was reserved. Subsequently, on 2/2/2024 the opposite party no. 2 appeared in person and requested for being provided an opportunity to file objections against the application, which was granted. The opposite party no. 2 has filed objections without supplying a copy of the same to the applicant or his learned Counsel. Moreover, the objections filed by the opposite party no. 2 do not address the question which has been raised by means of the application under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. For the aforesaid reasons, although the objections filed by the opposite party no.2 have been taken on record, the same are not being taken into consideration in this order.

(2.) By means of the instant application under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C., the applicants have assailed the legality and validity of the judgment and order dtd. 29/9/2022 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Div.)/FTC-I, Pratapgarh in Complaint Case No. 1386 of 2021, under Ss. 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, (which will hereinafter be referred to as 'the DV Act') Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Pratapgarh whereby an application dtd. 30/8/2022 filed by the applicants for dismissal of the complaint as not maintainable for the reason that the marriage between applicant no. 1 and opposite party no. 2 had been declared to be null and void by means of decree dtd. 26/3/2021, has been rejected.

(3.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the applicant no. 1 got married to the opposite party no. 2 on 12/5/2018. The applicant no. 1 filed a Suit No. 238/2019, under Ss. 11 and 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun, which was decreed ex parte on 26/3/2021 and the marriage between the applicant no. 1 and opposite party no. 2 was declared to be null and void for the reason that the applicant no. 1 and opposite party no. 2 were sapindas and the marriage between them was prohibited under Sec. 5(v) of the Hindu Marriage Act, and that the opposite party no. 2 was suffering from bipolar disorder and the consent of applicant no. 1 was obtained by concealing this fact which made the marriage voidable. The judgment records that the opposite party no. 2 had put in appearance in the suit initially but she abstained from filing a written statement or appearing to defend the suit and therefore, the suit was proceeded with and decided ex parte. The opposite party no. 2 had filed a Maintenance Suit No. 148 of 2019, under Sec. 125 Cr.P.C., which was rejected by means of an order dtd. 18/4/2023 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court No. 1, Pratapgarh on the ground that the marriage between the parties having been declared null and void, the application was not maintainable. The opposite party no. 2 has filed an application under Sec. 12 of the DV Act in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No. 19, Pratapgarh on 11/9/2019. The applicants filed a written statement and objections against the interim relief application stating that the marriage had been declared to be null and void on 27/9/2021. Thereafter the applicants filed another application for deciding the question of maintainability of the application under the DV Act. The said application has been rejected by the impugned order dtd. 29/9/2022.