IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1013 of 2007 NUTAN KUMARI Versus RANJEET KUMAR MAHTO & ANR ----------- 3 26.08.2008 Heard counsel for the petitioner. In the opinion of this Court, the impugned order refusing a prayer at the instance of wife, petitioner for dismissing a suit brought by the husband, does not suffer from any material irregularity and/or jurisdictional error inasmuch as the suit has been brought by the husband for declaring the marriage void and therefore, whatever be the worth or merit of such prayer of the husband, the opposite party, the Court below could not have dismissed the suit on the ground that such was brought within one year of the marriage in terms of Section 14 of the Hindu Marriage Act.. Section 14 of the Hindu Marriage Act in fact, only bars a suit for divorce and on a plain reading of the plaint as also its prayer portion, it would be clear that the suit filed by husband of the petitioner was not for a divorce but for declaration of marriage to be void. In view of the fact that Section 14 could not have been invoked for dismissing the suit filed by the husband of the petitioner and accordingly, this Court would not find any error in the impugned order. With the aforementioned observation this Civil Revision application is dismissed. Bibhash (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)