IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.6811 of 2010 Date of decision: 19.05.2011 Jitender …..Appellant Versus Geeta Devi ……Respondent CORAM: Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jasbir Singh Hon’ble Mr.Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg Present: Mr.R.N.Lohan, Advocate for the appellant Mr.A.S.Tewatia, Advocate for the respondent Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral) This appeal has been filed against an order dated 12.10.2010, allowing review application filed by the respondent, vide which, judgment and decree dated 2.3.2006 were recalled. It is apparent from the record that by stating that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 11.1.2004, a petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short, the Act), for grant of divorce on mutual consent was filed on 23.8.2005. Statements of the parties were recorded on 24.8.2005. Matter was adjourned to 25.2.2006, for recording second statements of the parties, which were accordingly recorded on the said date. Thereafter judgment and decree, granting divorce were passed on 2.3.2006. Thereafter, in the month of May 2008, respondent wife filed an application seeking review of the judgment mentioned above on a ground that a fraud has been committed with her. The marriage, in fact, was FAO No.6811 of 2010 solemnized on 5.12.2004. She under misconception made to sign the statements. Prayer was to recall the judgment and decree dated 2.3.2006. After notice, reply was filed by the appellant, raising many factual and legal objections. The trial Judge framed the following relevant issues in this case:- “1. Whether the respondent played fraud with the petitioner and obtained judgment and decree dated 02.03.2006 as alleged? OPP 2. Whether the petition filed under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was not maintainable as alleged? OPP 3. Whether the present petition is within time? OPP 4. Whether the petitioner is estopped from filing this petition by her act and conduct? OPR 5. Whether this court is having no jurisdiction to try this petition? OPR 6. Whether the petition is not maintainable in the present form? OPR” The evidence of the parties was recorded and while deciding issue Nos.1 to 3, a positive finding was given by the Court below that marriage, in fact, was solemnized on 5.12.2004 and not on 11.1.2004, as alleged by the appellant. After noticing evidence of both the parties, the Trial Judge came to a conclusion that as per legal bar contained in the Act, application could not have been moved for grant of decree of divorce as was done in the present case. Before this Court, counsel for the appellant has failed to show anything to the contrary except stating that one witness Gurnam Singh 2 FAO No.6811 of 2010 (AW3) had specifically stated that marriage was solemnized on 11.1.2004. This point was specifically discussed by the trial Judge by noting that in the examination-in-chief and also in the cross-examination thereafter, that witness has stated that the marriage was solemnized on 5.12.2004. By taking it only as an inadvertent error, the fact was ignored from consideration. We feel that once it has come on record that the application for divorce was filed contrary to the provisions of Section 14 of the Act, which debars presentation of any application for divorce within one year from the date of marriage except under the circumstances explained in that provisions, the order passed is justified. No specific order was passed to entertain the application within a period of one year. No case is made out for interference. Dismissed. (Jasbir Singh) Judge 19.05.2011 (Rakesh Kumar Garg) gk Judge 3