SUNIL KUMAR Vs. CHANCHAL PAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed against the order dated 10.10.2019 passed by the learned Family Court No.1, Jaipur. The order dated 10.10.2019 reads as under: ...[Varnacular Text Omitted]...

(2.) Assailing the order, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in para 6 of the petition filed by the respondent under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, she herself has claimed the parties to have resided together till 17.06.2019 and hence, the petition seeking divorce on the ground of desertion filed on 05.10.2019 was not maintainable. He submits that the petition was supported by false affidavit of the respondent wherein she claimed to have married the petitioner on 15.02.2017 whereas, on that day, two D.B. Civil Misc. Appeals bearing No.4098/2016 and 4099/2016 were pending before this Court against the judgment and decree dated 25.06.2016 whereby the petition filed by Shri Ajay Singh, ex husband seeking divorce was allowed and the application filed by the respondent-wife for restitution of conjugal rights was dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since an appeal against grant of decree of divorce was pending on 15.02.2017 i.e. date of marriage of the petitioner with the respondent, such marriage was hit by Section 15 of the Act of 1955 rendering it null and void. He submits that in these circumstances, the learned Family Court ought not to have entertained the petition filed by the respondent under Section 13 of the Act of 1955 and should not have issued notices of the same to the petitioner vide order impugned. To buttress his submission that the marriage of the respondent with him was hit by Section 15 of the Act of 1955, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in D.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.363/2013 (Shilpa Vs. Kuldeep Singh Gehlot) reported in (2015) 3 DNJ 1190. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that, it was imperative for the learned Family Court No.1, Jaipur to have taken cognizance of the the aforesaid judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court, being law of the land, before issuing the notice to him vide order impugned dated 10.10.2019.

(3.) Therefore, submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner has been that the learned Family Court No.1, Jaipur has erred gravely in issuing notices to him on a petition filed by the respondent under Section 13 of the Act of 1955 which, on its face, was not maintainable.