LAWS(MPH)-1995-7-6

RANJANA MUNSHI Vs. TARAL MUNSHI

Decided On July 11, 1995
RANJANA MUNSHI Appellant
V/S
TARAL MUNSHI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is assailing the order which has been passed by IXth Additional District Judge (Matrimonial Court), Indore dated 17. 11. 1983 by which he permitted respondent No. 2 Girjashankar Mishra s/o Sadashiv Mishra, the father of present appellant Ranjana to contest as a party in the matter of Matrimonial Petition No. 535 of 1991.

(2.) THE marriage between appellant Ranjana and respondent No. 1 Taral Munshi was solemized on 8. 5. 1989 at Indore by Hindu religious rites. Thereafter both of them lived together for a considerable period. They were unable to adjust themselves in the said matrimonial tie and, therefore, a petition in view of provisions of Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as Hindu Marriage Act for convenience) came to be filed in the Matrimonial Court by appellant Ranjana against respondent No. 1 Taral Munshi. She prayed for a decree of divorce and dissolution of said matrimonial tie. Thereafter both, Ranjana and Taral Munshi filed an application on 25. 2. 1993 under Section 13 (8) of the Hindu Marriage Act for obtaining a decree of divorce by consent. When the said application was pending before the Court, respondent No. 2 Girjashankar Mishra, father of present appellant Ranjana, filed an application before the said Court making request that he be impleaded as party in the said matrimonial petition. The Court below allowed it and that order is being assailed in this appeal.

(3.) MR. Mev, learned Counsel for appellant submitted that both Ranjana and Taral Munshi are sufficiently educated persons. He submitted that respondent Taral happens to be an officer serving in public sector company and present appellant Ranjana is serving in bank. He submitted that when they had moved an application in view of provisions of Section 13 (B) of the Act and that was being considered by the Matrimonial Court, respondent No. 2 did not have any locus standi in contesting said matrimonial petition. He submitted, the impugned order be set aside as improper, incorrect and illegal.