SURESH KHULLAR Vs. VIJAY KUMAR KHULLAR
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
VIJAY KUMAR KHULLAR
Click here to view full judgement.
A.K.Sikri, J. -
(1.) The appellant is the second wife of the respondent. The respondent had put up an advertisement for marriage stating that he is a divorcee and extremely well-to-do and have a thriving business. He made the appellant believe that his salary is in four figures and that he held a diploma in Industrial and Marketing Management. It was under this impression that the appellant, who was survived by a widowed mother, married the respondent in accordance with Hindu rites and rituals on 14.10.1988. Within a few days of the marriage, the respondent threw the appellant out of the matrimonial home and filed a petition for divorce. The appellant also filed petition under Sections 18,20 & 22 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for grant of separate residence and maintenance before the trial court being suit No. 3/96.
(2.) It was only during the course of the divorce proceedings that it was disclosed to the appellant that the respondent had obtained a decree of divorce from his first wife from a Court in Una, Himachal Pradesh - a Court that had no jurisdiction whatsoever to adjudicate upon the divorce matter according to the first wife. As alleged by the first wife, no valid service of the divorce proceedings had been affected on the first wife. The said ex-parte decree was set aside by the Court which passed the decree on the ground that there was no valid service of summons on the first wife of the respondent herein.
(3.) The appellant alleges that the respondent intentionally did so, so that he could take the plea that the effect of setting aside the decree was that the first marriage revived as if there was never any divorce and consequently, the marriage of the appellant with the respondent is not a valid marriage. Accepting the plea of the respondent that the appellant is not his legally wedded wife, the said maintenance petition has been dismissed. Challenging that judgment, the present appeal is preferred.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.