Maninder Kaur v. Manvinder Pal Singh

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

JULY 12, 2018 'gsr'..

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 12th July, 2018 + MAT.APP. 116/2009, CM No.16501/2009 (for stay) & CM No.44597/2017 (for directions). M.K. ..... Appellant Through: Ms. Suman Chauhan, Adv. Versus M.P.S. ..... Respondent Through: Dr. (Maj.) J.C.Vashista & Ms. Yashika Sood, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW 1. This appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 impugns the judgment and decree [dated 21st July, 2009 in HMA No.525/2006 of the Court of Additional District Judge (ADJ)-01, North District, Delhi] of dissolution of marriage of the parties under Section 13(1)(ia)&(ib) of the Act. 2. The appeal came up first before this Court on 18th November, 2009 when it was adjourned to 1st December, 2009. Notice of the appeal was ordered to be issued and vide ex parte order dated 1st December, 2009, the respondent / husband restrained from re-marrying. 3. On 19th January, 2011, the appeal was admitted for hearing and thereafter has been listed repeatedly and adjourned from time to time. Attempts made on several occasion for amicable settlement remained unsuccessful. 4. Trial Court record, though requisitioned and received, but has been sent back. The order dated 17th July, 2017 records that the respondent has been paying maintenance of Rs.1800/- per month to the appellant / wife and that there is a 17 year old daughter born out of the wedlock of the parties. 5. On the last date of hearing i.e. 4th May, 2018, none appeared for the appellant and in the interest of justice, the appeal was not dismissed in default and posted for today. 6. Today also, on first call none appeared for the appellant / wife. However, when the appeal was about to be dismissed in default, the counsel for the respondent / husband pointed out that the appellant / wife is present in Court in person. The appellant / wife was asked to get her advocate and after another passover, the counsel for the appellant / wife has finally appeared. 7. The advocate for the appellant / wife sought adjournment stating that she was under the impression that the matter is pending for mediation. However attention of the advocate is drawn to the order dated 9th March, 2018 recording that the mediation between the parties has failed. Since the appeal has already been pending for the last nine years, the matter was yet again passed over to enable the counsel for the appellant to collate her thoughts and argue the appeal. 8. The counsel for the appellant has only argued that the respondent / husband, in the petition for dissolution of marriage from which this appeal arises, stated that at the time of marriage with the appellant / wife he was a divorcee; however the respondent / husband has not proved the dissolution of his earlier marriage. 9. I have enquired from the counsel for the appellant / wife, whether not the impact of the contention aforesaid of the counsel for the appellant / wife would be to render void the marriage which admittedly took place between the parties and how the same would benefit the appellant. 10. The counsel for the appellant / wife states that if marriage is void, the impugned judgment and decree of dissolution thereof would be liable to be set aside. 11. However, upon the implications thereof being told to the counsel for the appellant / wife, she has not pressed the said aspect. 12. Else, no other argument has been urged. 13. However, at the time of dictation, when this is recorded, the counsel for the appellant / wife again seeks adjournment. 14. Though the Trial Court record has been sent back but copies of the relevant Trial Court record have been filed with the Memorandum of appeal and have been perused. 15. The respondent / husband applied for dissolution of marriage, pleading (i) that the parties were married on 11th April, 1999 at New Delhi according to the Sikh rights and ceremonies; (ii) that a daughter was born to the parties on 17th June, 2000; (iii) that the marriage was solemnized pursuant