RANJANA VINOD KEJRIWAL Vs. VINOD BABULAL KEJRIWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 10th August, 2004, passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Mumbai, in petition No. A-116/1998 by which the learned Judge of the Family Court dismissed the petition filed by the appellant for getting a decree of nullity of her marriage with the respondent, maintenance as well as for return of her articles and things as more particularly set out in Exhibit-A to the said petition

(2.) The appellant was the original petitioner before the Family Court. She preferred the said petition with a prayer that the marriage solemnised on 26th April, 1987, between the appellant and respondent may be treated as null and void and the respondent may be directed to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 25,000/- per month.

(3.) It is the case of the appellant before the Family Court that her marriage with the respondent took place on 26th April, 1987 according to Hindu Vedic Rites at Shree Ganga Nagar, Rajasthan. The said marriage is not registered. There are no issues out of the said wedlock. According to the appellant, she came to Mumbai and started staying with the respondent in her matrimonial home at Goregaon, Mumbai and within a week thereafter on 2nd May, 1987, the appellant learnt about the respondent's previous marriage with one Usha Kejriwal. It is the case of the appellant that she was ousted from the matrimonial home on 24th May, 1989 and she was sent to the respondent's uncle's house at Mathura. It is further the case of the appellant that the marriage between herself and the respondent is null and void and it may be declared accordingly. The aforesaid petition was resisted by the respondent by filing his written statement. It is the case of the respondent that the respondent was never married to the appellant and their marriage had not taken place at all. According to the respondent, the petition is barred by the law of limitation as well as barred by principles of res judicata and under the provisions of Order 2, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. On such and other grounds the petition was resisted by the respondent.