Sarnam Singh Lekhpal Chakbandi v. Preetam Kumari and Another
Case Name:
Sarnam Singh Lekhpal Chakbandi v. Preetam Kumari and Another,2023
Case Category:
Latest Relevant Cases
Petitioner:
Sarnam Singh Lekhpal Chakbandi
Counsel for Appellant:-
Mr. Manoj Kumar Sharmam, Smt. Krishna Singh
Respondent:
Preetam Kumari and Another
Counsel for Respondent
Mr. Manoj Kumar Gupta, Mr. Mahesh Narain Singh
Bench:
Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J.
Laws Involved:
Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
Order 41 Rule 31 of the C.P.C
Facts:
Talk of marriage between the plaintiff and defendant has taken place
Due to fraudulent act of the wife- Preetam Kumari and their family members, the mediation has taken place and the proposal of the marriage has come to an end.
Father of Preetam Kumari has illegally kidnapped the plaintiff (Sarnam Singh) and illegally solemnized the marriage which is not a legal marriage as prescribed under the Hindu Marriage Act.
It is also mentioned in the plaint that there was no relation of husband and wife between them, as such, the alleged marriage be declared null and void.
In the written statement, Preetam Kumari denied the plaint allegations and submitted that the valid marriage has taken place, as such, the suit for declaring the marriage null and void be dismissed.
Plaint case of O.S. No.213 of 2003 in brief was that
Preetam Kumari was married to Sarnam Singh according to the custom on 5/6.7.1997 but husband Sarnam Singh has deserted her, as such, the instant suit for restitution of conjugal rights has been filed by wife Preetam Kumari.
Husband Sarnam Singh denied the plaint allegations and stated that no valid marriage according to the Hindu Marriage Act has taken place between them, as such, the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief claimed in the suit for restitution of conjugal rights. It is also mentioned in the written statement that defendant has already filed a Suit No.257/1997 for declaring the marriage as null and void.
Both the aforementioned suits were consolidated and heard together.
Issues:
Whether the order of maintenance under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act can be passed without such relief being asked by the person in whose favour such order is being passed?
Whether the first appellate court had not afforded opportunity of hearing to parties on the point of maintenance under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act.? If so, its affect.
Judgements:
The perusal of the judgment of lower appellate court reveals that lower appellate court has ordered for maintenance/ permanent alimony on the ground that there was divorce decree of the trial court although trial court passed the decree declaring the marriage as void / ineffective, as such, there was no occasion to order for maintenance / permanent alimony in favour of respondent – wife while dismissing the civil appeal filed by respondent – wife, as such, judgment and decree passed by lower appellate court for maintenance/permanent alimony is vitiated by manifest error of law. 16. So far as exercise of the jurisdiction under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act while dismissing the civil appeal filed by wife is concerned, the perusal of Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act will be necessary.
The perusal of the lower court record reveals that there was no application under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on record, as such, exercise of power under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 by the lower appellate court while dismissing the civil appeals filed by respondent – wife, affirming the decree of trial court, declaring the marriage as void and ineffective is vitiated by manifest error of law.
So far as grant of monthly maintenance by trial court is concerned, the same has come to an end while passing the final judgment and decree by trial court declaring the marriage as void and ineffective, as such, no reliance can be placed upon the monthly maintenance granted by trial court.
Since there was no application under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 by respondent-wife in civil appeal, as such, there was no question that lower appellate court has provided opportunity of hearing to appellant – husband in civil appeal before passing order of maintenance in favour of wife.
Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the grant of maintenance under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act in favour of Preetam Kumari when marriage has been declared null and void by the trial court, cannot be maintained in the eye of law.
The suit for declaring the marriage as null and void, has been decreed by the trial court and the decree has been affirmed in the first appeal, as such, the first appellate court has committed illegality in passing the order for maintenance under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
It is also material that finding of the trial court has been maintained in the appeal, as such, there was no occasion to grant maintenance under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act in favour of the respondent Preetam Kumari coupled with the fact that there was no application under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in civil appeal by respondent-wife.
In view of the finding of fact recorded by the trial court declaring the marriage as void and ineffective, the grant of maintenance under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act in favour of the respondent Preetam Kumari is manifestly erroneous and illegal. The substantial questions of law nos. 1 and 2 are answered in favour of appellant and against the respondent.
In view of above, the part of the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court by which maintenance under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act has been granted by the first appellate court in Civil Appeal No.44/2010 and 45/2010 is hereby set aside. The second appeal stands allowed. No order as to costs.
Case Learning:
An order of maintenance under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act cannot be passed without such relief being asked by the person in whose favour such order is being passed.
Reference:
https://www.verdictum.in/pdf_upload/sapla10872015watermark-1493563.pdf
No comments:
Post a Comment