SMT. RAJNI W/O NARESH KUMAR GURJAR D/O PADAM SINGH GURJAR Vs. NARESH KUMAR GURJAR S/O RAMESHWAR PRASAD GURJAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of these two cross appeals being D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2173/2017 and D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2505/2017, appellant/defendant Smt. Rajni has assailed the judgment and decree for dissolution of marriage, whereas respondent/plaintiff Naresh Kumar Gurjar has challenged part of the judgment pertaining to grant of one-time maintenance for seventy thousand.

(2.) Brief facts of the petition seeking annulment of marriage depicts pleading that marriage of plaintiff/respondent Naresh Kumar Gurjar was ceremonized on 17.4.2008, when he was a minor child and defendant/appellant Smt. Rajni was also a minor child and date of birth of the plaintiff/respondent was 30.10.1993. Smt. Rajni had stayed with her in law for a single day and no consummation of marriage took place, besides 'gauna' ceremony having not been performed, on attainment of majority/puberty, plaintiff/respondent Naresh Kumar Gurjar repudiated the marriage within two years of attainment of majority, while rebutting the pleadings, defendant/appellant Smt. Rajni pleaded that after marriage, customary ceremony of 'gauna' was performed on 4.11.2011 and she lived in the consortium of her husband for four days but was ousted by her in-laws on 08.11.2011, post demand of dowry.

(3.) Heard learned counsels for both the sides, learned counsel for the appellant Smt. Rajni has contended that the court below has faulted in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff/respondent, respondent Naresh Kumar Gurjar was not a minor at the time of the marriage and ceremony of 'gauna' was also performed. Smt. Rajni had joined consortium of her defendant husband and stayed with her husband for few days after consummation of marriage, learned trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in right perspective, so the judgment and decree impugned be reversed and order relating to grant of maintenance under the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act, be sustained. Per contra learned counsel for respondent/defendant Naresh Kumar Gurjar has argued that Naresh Kumar was a minor at the time of his marriage and it has been established by the evidence of both the sides that ceremony of 'gauna' was performed, Naresh Kumar Gurjar had opted and availed option of puberty and had repudiated the marriage on attaining majority and has preferred petition seeking annulment of marriage within two years as per the provision of Section 3 (3) of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act 2006, so the findings of annulment of marriage does deserve interference and has further contended that maintenance cannot be awarded by two forums separately, since Smt. Rajni is obtaining maintenance under the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act and the court below, while allowing the petition, has wrongly awarded a lump sum maintenance for seventy thousand, which is liable to be quashed, so appeal filed by the groom Naresh Kumar Gurjar be accepted and appeal preferred by bride Smt. Rajni be dismissed.