CASE SUMMARY – PAWAN KUMAR V. SMT MUKESH KUMARI – AIR 2001 RAJ 1, I (2001) DMC 282, 2000(3) WLC527, 2001(1) WLN188

Edited By – Anubhav Yadav

This case summary is written by Joyita Mukhopadhyay, a law student at Amity University, Kolkata.


CASE NAME

Pawan Kumar vs Smt. Mukesh Kumari on 31 July, 2000

 AIR 2001 Raj 1, I (2001) DMC 282, 2000(3) WLC527,2001(1) WLN188


FACTS

The marriage between the parties had occurred as per the Hindu customs on 3-6-1990 and following two days of the marriage, the respondent wife went out. The charge following 4 1/2 months of the marriage on 19-11-1990, a male youngster was destined to the respondent and, in this manner, the litigant asserted that at the hour of marriage the respondent was pregnant from some other individual with whom she more likely than not had the sexual relations. On being asked of the reality, the respondent is said to have conceded that she was pregnant at the hour of marriage from some other individual yet she would not tell the name. The request was documented on the ground that the marriage had been affected with fraud purposely well that the respondent was pregnant at the hour of marriage with 41/2 months pregnancy and had this reality been made known to the appealing party spouse, he would not have hitched such woman and that the husband and his family had been let down in the general public. The groups of both the gatherings had met and talked about this issue. It is expressed that the slip-up was acknowledged and furthermore conciliatory sentiment was offered recorded as a hard copy. The guardians of the respondent removed the respondent alongside recently conceived youngster, adornments and every single other material and so on 22-11-1990 for example following three days of the introduction of the new born and since the time neither the gatherings nor the families had any connection. It was additionally affirmed that due to such lead of the respondent the appealing party had endured the psychological anguish, social embarrassment which is as yet proceeding. 


ISSUES

  1. The element of marriage on 30-06-1990.
  2. The birth of the new born on 19-11-1990.
  3. The marriage had been performed by fraud and misrepresentation.
  4. The defendant and her father accept the mistake of fact and made written apology and the respondent’s father took back all the belongings with the new born with all other articles.
  5. Separation of both the parties since 22-11-1990.
  6. Mental and social humiliation of the plaintiff’s family[1].

HELD

J.C. Verma, J. 1. This Civil Misc. Claim is coordinated by the spouse Pawan Kumar against the respondent Smt. Mukesh Kumari against the request dated 15.12.1999 whereby the use of separation recorded under Section 12(1)(d) of the Hindu Marriage Act[2] for announcing the union with be invalid and void has been dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Bayana (Bharatpur) .Notice was given and notwithstanding the notification having been served on 22.2.2000 the respondent had not decided to show up or guard the case.  So far the lawful position is concerned, no uncertainty there is a legal confinement to engage the application for invalidation of marriage if the application isn’t introduced inside a time of one year from the date of marriage, however the insight for the appealing party expresses that taking into account curious conditions of the case and considering the way that they had scarcely lived respectively for a day or two according to the finding and furthermore according to the finding the respondent was pregnant at the hour of marriage and the gatherings had settled between themselves to live respectively and keeping in touch with this impact was likewise affected and furthermore taking into account the way that if a new request is recorded on similar grounds, the comparative proof should be driven by the gatherings, the separation application be changed over under Section 13of the Hindu Marriage Act on remorselessness.



[1] indiankanoon.org/doc/175005/ (03.07.2020,16:00pm).

[2] Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, No. 25, Acts of Parliament, 1955.

www.legitquest.com/case/pawan-kumar-v-mukesh-kumari/EBB0A(04-07-2020,15:00pm)


Written By:

Author Name: Joyita Mukhopadhyay

Published on: 15th July 2020