LALITA GUPTA Vs. PARVEEN KUMAR MAHAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A sum of Rs. 4,250/- by way of withdrawal form has been today given to the learned counsel for the appellant as arrears of maintenance by the learned counsel for the respondent, which has been duly accepted by him.

(2.) THE marriage was solemnised on July 8, 1982. The petition under Section ) 2 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter called the Act), for getting the marriage annulled by a decree of nullity was filed on August 26, 1982, which was allowed on May 27, 1983. Appeal against the said judgment and decree of the trial Court was filed on April 8, 1985, but before any stay was obtained by the appellant, the respondent -had already re-married. When appeal came up for final hearing before the learned Single Judge he relying upon the Devision Bench judgment of this Court in Promod Sharma v. Radha, A. I. R. 1976 Punjab and Haryana 355 came to the conclusion that the second marriage solemnised after the passing of the decree of nullity under Section 12 of the Act before the issuance of any stay order rendered the appeal of the wife against the decree of nullity infructuous. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as such.

(3.) THE learned- counsel for the appellant submitted that simply because the respondent had married for the second time during the pendency of the appeal, it did not render the appeal infructuous and that it should have been decided on merits. In support of the contention, the learned counsel relied upon Tejinder Kaur v. Gurmit Singh A. I. R. 1988 Supreme Court 839.