SUNITA Vs. PUNEET RAM CHANDANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that one Smt. Jasoda Devi and her son Puneet filed suit for declaring, the marriage between said Puneet with respondent Sunita as void, \Us alleged by the plaintiffs-non-petitioners in the plaint that the plaintiff No,2 and defendant Sunita are descendants of Ghyanchand in third decree only. In view of the above, both are sapindas and their marriage is void. Apart from above ground, there are number of grounds for declaring the alleged marriage of Puneet with Sunita as void. In this petition under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the petitioner has submitted application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act claiming the interim maintenance and litigation expenses. This application was contested by the plaintiff-non-petitioners by filing the reply. The trial Court vide order dated 27-1-2005, held that prima facie the marriage between said Puneet with Sunita appears to be void in view of the fact that the applicant-petitioner did not deny the relations as disclosed by the plaintiffs.

(3.) The petitioner is aggrieved against the order dated 27-1-2005 by which the petitioner's application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act was dismissed by the trial Court. So far as relations because of the fact that both are descendants of one Ghyanchand are not in dispute. The plaintiffs submitted that the marriage is void because of both are falling in the prohibited degree and plaintiffs further submitted that in fact, the plaintiff No. 2 Puneet never contracted marriage with the petitioner-defendant. The contention of the petitioner is that marriage took place and therefore, only the plaintiffs-non-petitioners filed the suit for declaring the marriage as void and if there was no marriage, they could have sought the declaration that it may be declared that defendant is not plaintiffs wife as suit for declaration of status is also maintainable: