JAYA ALIAS ANISHA SHARMA Vs. ANKUR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties on the question of admission.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the respondent has filed an application before the Family Court to declare the marriage dated 02/07/2017 between him and petitioner as null and void and also claimed for damages under Section 11 read with Section 5(1) and 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The said petition was registered as H.M.A. No.1474/2018.

(3.) The petitioner submits that she was on bed rest due to severe multiple ligament injury in her leg and, therefore, she could not appear before the Court on 7/03/2019. However, Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that she filed the medical documents related to the petitioner's injury. Taking the memo and said documents on record, the learned Court fixed the case again for petitioner's presence, on 11/03/2019. She submits that the petitioner was not recovered from her injury within four days of the previous date in the Court and was unable to walk into the Court to attend the proceedings dated 11/03/2019 in the case filed against her by the respondent. In the said circumstances, the petitioner's counsel filed an application under Section 13 Rule 14 of Family Court's Act seeking permission to appear on her behalf. Besides, the counsel also prayed for stay of the proceedings by filing an application under Section 151 of C.P.C. and the other documents for grant of adjournment in the case. However, the learned Court below has rejected the said applications, without considering the medical documents and medical certificate of the petitioner brought on record and fixed the case on 13/03/2019 for exparte evidence of the respondent. On the said date i.e. on 13/03/2019, the learned Court below has recorded the exparte evidence of the respondent in absence of petitioner and on 14/03/2019, the learned Family Court has passed the judgment and decree against the petitioner whereby, it has not only declared the alleged marriage of the petitioner and respondent as null and void, but also allowed the claim of the respondent for damages.