NARESH KUMARI Vs. AJAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant-wife has preferred this appeal against the judgment and decree dated 17.4.2015, passed by the Additional District Judge, Rohtak, allowing petition under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, filed by the respondent-husband.

(2.) The case of the respondent-husband, as pleaded in the petition, was that the parties were married on 22.6.2012 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies in District Jind. After the marriage, they stared residing at Village Meham, District Rohtak, but no child was born. The respondent1 husband claimed the marriage to be nullity on the ground that the appellantwife was previously married to one Vinod Kumar son of Bhim Singh resident of Bhiwani, and she had told to the appellant that divorce had been obtained from said Vinod Kumar. In June 2013, the respondent-husband asked the appellant-wife to bring divorce decree regarding her previous marriage for getting their marriage registered but she did not bring the decree of divorce passed by any Court of law. Later on the respondenthusband came to learn that the previous marriage of the appellant-wife was subsisting at the time of the marriage of the parties on 22.6.2012. He claimed that marriage was liable to be declared a nullity.

(3.) Appellant-Wife in her written statement raised preliminary objections to the effect that the respondent-husband had suppressed the material facts and clarified that she had taken divorce from her earlier husband Vinod Kumar in the presence of Biradari and at that time, family members of the family of Vinod Kumar and appellant were present before the officials of Women Cell, Jind and all the disputes regarding dowry etc. were settled. They all mutually agreed that both Vinod Kumar and Naresh Kumari were free to marry each other as per their own choice and documents. The statements were duly signed by the parties in presence of Biradari. This fact had been disclosed to the respondenthusband and his family members and on their satisfaction the marriage was solemnized between the parties. She raised the allegations that she had been maltreated and she was tortured for bringing less dowry. On account of previous knowledge of the respondent regarding previous marriage and passage of more than one year and birth of no child, the petition deserves to be dismissed.