Promotees Allowed to Challenge Provisional Seniority List in Dispute Between Direct Recruitment and Promotion: Kerala High Court Frivolous Defenses Cannot Justify Leave to Defend Under Order XXXVII CPC Delhi High Court Candidates Merely Enrolled in Final Year B.V.Sc. Program Ineligible for Veterinary Officer Recruitment: Rajasthan High Court Manufacturing or Sale of Garments Does Not Attract Copyright Protection; Procedural Violations Under Trade Marks Act Renders Prosecution Unsustainable: P&H High Court Ownership Alone Is Not Sufficient to Maintain Eviction Suit; Plaintiff Must Qualify as a Lessor Under Lease Agreement: Calcutta High Court Findings Based on Evidence Cannot Be Interfered With in a Second Appeal Without Substantial Question of Law: AP High Court Chain of Circumstances Broken: Inferences Cannot Replace Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Kerala High Court Bail | Prolonged Incarceration Without Trial Violates Article 21 of the Constitution: Bombay High Court Encroachment on a Common Lane Gives Rise to Recurring Cause of Action: Madras High Court Holds Limitation Act Inapplicable to Pathway Disputes Reproductive Autonomy Includes the Right to Abort Without Spousal Consent: P&H High Court Access to Writ Jurisdiction Under Article 226 is Not an Absolute Bar Against MSEFC Awards: Supreme Court Refers Key Questions on Writ Jurisdiction to Larger Bench Civil Court Jurisdiction Not Ousted for Title and Mortgage Disputes Under SARFAESI Act: Supreme Court Principle of Bail is the Rule, Jail is the Exception: Supreme Court Panchayat Law | Mandatory Compliance With Section 34 And Rule 3 Is Non-Negotiable In Resignation Cases: Bombay High Court Quashes Resignation Of Upa-Sarpanch Recovery of Bullet Fired from Accused’s Weapon Crucial: PH High Court Reaffirms Conviction in Murder Case Injured Witness Evidence Carries Built-in Reliability Unless Contradicted Significantly: Kerala High Court Partly Allows Appeal in Murder Case Civil Dispute with Criminal Elements Cannot Be Quashed Under Section 482 Cr.P.C.: Karnataka High Court Issuance of Summons Under Section 91 CrPC During Preliminary Verification is Without Jurisdiction: High Court of J&K and Ladakh Article 21 Prevails Over NDPS Act’s Section 37 Restrictions in Cases of Prolonged Incarceration: Delhi High Court Once a Property is Waqf, It Remains Waqf Perpetually: Calcutta High Court Affirms No Secular Ownership Can Derive from Waqf Properties Surveillance Without Opportunity to Object Violates Articles 14, 19, and 21: Allahabad High Court Quashes Class-B History Sheets Mandatory Provisions of Order XXI CPC Were Violated, Rendering the Auction Sale Illegal: Punjab and Haryana High Court

Delhi High Court Rejects Annulment Petition on Grounds of Fraud and Limitation

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


New Delhi, August 18, 2023 - In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court has rejected an annulment petition seeking to dissolve a marriage on grounds of fraud. The judgement was delivered by a bench comprising of Hon'ble Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Hon'ble Justice Neena Bansal Krishna on August 18, 2023.

The case involved an appellant seeking to annul a marriage under Section 12(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, citing allegations of force and fraud as to the nature of the ceremony or material facts concerning the respondent. The alleged instances included the appellant's demand for dowry and his failure to complete VISA formalities after the marriage, coupled with claims of misrepresentation about relocation to New Zealand.

In a meticulously reasoned judgement, Justice Neena Bansal Krishna highlighted the importance of distinguishing between "fraud" as defined in the Indian Contract Act, 1872, and the specific requirements for fraud under Section 12(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act. The Court emphasized that not every misrepresentation or concealment constitutes "fraud" in the context of marriage, stressing that it must relate to material facts or circumstances concerning the respondent.

Furthermore, the judgement analyzed the issue of limitation in the context of the annulment petition. The Court found that the alleged fraud was known to the respondent since the very initiation of the marriage, and the petition was filed after a period of 25 months, exceeding the one-year limitation prescribed by Section 12(2)(a) of the Act.

The bench's observation in the judgement highlighted the Court's commitment to judiciously apply the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, including Order VII Rule 11, to expedite the disposal of petitions and discard frivolous litigation at the outset. The Court underscored the need to prevent unnecessary delays and protracted legal battles, ultimately contributing to a more effective and just judicial system.

Quoting the judgement, Justice Neena Bansal Krishna stated, "Scrupulous adherence to provisions of CPC... can curtail litigation like the present one, which aside from clogging the litigation that could have been nipped in the initial stage itself, also keeps the parties embroiled in litigation with a false hope of some relief, which is never to come their way."

The Court's decision to reject the annulment petition was founded on the grounds that the allegations failed to establish a cause of action under Section 12(1)(c) of the Act and were barred by limitation. The application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was allowed, and the appeal was consequently allowed with pending applications being disposed of.

This judgement reinforces the need for due diligence in assessing the grounds for annulment and highlights the court's commitment to timely and just adjudication.

Date of Decision: August 18, 2023

ASSEM AGGARWAL vs ASHI KUMAR

Similar News