RAHUL SHARMA Vs. REETU SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal under Sec. 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is directed against the judgment and decree dtd. 27/1/2010 passed by the Sixth Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Bhind in HMA case No.19 of 2009, whereby an application preferred under Sec. 11 and 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act by the appellant seeking dissolution of marriage either void/voidable has been rejected.

(2.) Short facts of the case are that the marriage was solemnized between the appellant and the respondent on 2/5/2009 as per the Hindu religious rites and customs at village Urai Road Mihona Tehsil Lahar District Bhind. After the marriage, the respondent-wife lived with the appellant-husband till 8/5/2009. Thereafter, she went to her maternal home and returned back to her matrimonial home on 11/5/2009 and lived there only for 7 days. During that period the respondent-wife had denied the appellant the marital happiness. The respondent-wife told the appellant-husband that she is already married to one Vivek Mishra, therefore, she cannot live with him and she gave the appellant a mobile no. 9753936690 of Vivek Mishra and made the appellant talk with him on the mobile, where Vivek Mishra told the appellant about the fact of his marriage with the respondent and he threatened the appellant not to have any marital relations with the respondent, otherwise the appellant-husband would have to face the consequences. Thereafter, when the appellant called the family members of the respondent-wife and informed them about the same, they gave understanding to the respondent-wife to live with the appellant but she refused to do so. Thereafter, the respondent-wife left her matrimonial home with ornaments and other articles and went to her maternal home and since then she is living with her parents.

(3.) At the time of marriage on 02/05/2009 the respondent was pregnant with the child of Vivek Mishra. Therefore, the appellant-husband has filed the petition under Sec. 11 and 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act submitting that the respondent-wife and her family had committed a fraud with him, as no physical relation took place between them and the respondent-wife was already married to other person, namely, Vivek Mishra, which is against and in contravention of the Hindu religious rites and was pregnant from him, therefore the marriage is null and void/voidable in the eye of law. Though the notices were issued to the respondent-wife by registered post, even then she has not appeared during the trial.