ANKITA DEVI Vs. JAGDEPENDRA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Mata Achal Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.

(2.) The appellant-plaintiff (wife) has come forward to challenge the impugned judgement and order dtd. 22/11/2023 passed by the Family Court in Matrimonial Suit No. 272 of 2018 (Km. Ankita Devi vs. Shri Jagdependra Singh @ Kanhaiya), whereby petition filed under Sec. 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was dismissed.

(3.) Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the dismissal of the petition under Sec. 11 of the Act is patently illegal. He submits that the appellant-plaintiff (wife) had initially filed a Matrimonial Petition No. 272 of 2018 on 10/2/2018 under Sec. 12 of the Act wherein an amendment application dtd. 30/3/2019 was filed, which was allowed by the Family Court vide order dtd. 22/2/2021 on payment of cost and Sec. 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') was deleted and in place thereof, Sec. 11 of the Act was incorporated. It is pointed out that the respondent-husband (defendant) challenged the said order by filing First Appeal No. 649 of 2021 (Jagdeevendra Singh @ Kannahaiya vs. Km. Ankita Devi) before this Court, which was dismissed vide order dtd. 1/3/2023 and the proceedings of the divorce petition were directed to be decided expeditiously. It is further submitted that thereafter vide order dtd. 25/5/2023 the matter was directed to be proceeded exparte against the husband, who although appeared before the Court below and filed his written statement but absented himself. The appellant-wife (plaintiff) appeared as PW-1 and examined herself and filed the marriage registration certificate, Allahabad Bank passbook and Aadhar Card of the appellant. It is submitted that she was working as Executive Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Manjhanpur, District Kaushambi and the marriage was got registered under duress as mother of the appellant-wife was a heart patient and her treatment in AIIMS was required and she was not in a position to get her treated in AIIMS because of financial constraints. It was submitted that therefore the marriage was an outcome of fraud and thus, the impugned judgement is liable to be set aside and the petition filed under Sec. 11 of the Act is liable to be allowed.