KUSUM Vs. ANKIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant-wife against the judgment and decree dated 30.05.2016 passed by the Court below vide which petition under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, (for short 'the Act'), filed by the respondent-husband was allowed.

(2.) Few facts necessary for adjudication of the instant appeal as pleaded in the petition before the Court below may be noticed. The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 06.02.2013 as per Sikh rites and ceremonies at Kurukshetra. After the marriage, the parties resided and cohabited as husband and wife at Kurukshetra. A male child was born out of the said wedlock on 17.12.2013. It was alleged that the appellant-wife got married to the respondent-husband during the subsistence of her first marriage with one Hardeep Singh and the said fact was concealed by her at the time of their marriage. It was further alleged that it came to the notice of the respondent-husband only in the month of August, 2014 that the appellant-wife and the said Hardeep Singh (first husband of the appellant-wife) had filed a petition under Section 13-B of the Act for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent, which was allowed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Kaithal on 17.04.2013 i.e. after solemnization of marriage between the parties. Besides this, the respondent-husband also levelled allegations of cruel and abusive behaviour against the appellant-wife.

(3.) Per contra, the appellant-wife categorically denied the concealment of her first marriage with Hardeep Singh from the respondenthusband, in her written statement filed before the Court below. She claimed that in fact it was well within the knowledge of the respondent-husband and his family that a petition under Section 13-B of the Act was pending between her and her first husband. She rather submitted that it was with the consent and knowledge of both the parties that her marriage with the respondent-husband was solemnized during the pendency of petition under Section 13-B of the Act between her and her first husband. She further submitted that in fact the husband had thrown her out of her matrimonial home and all her dowry articles had been misappropriated by them which included a car and motorcycle.