IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA FAO 457 of 2008 Date of decision: 24.05.2010 Smt. Reetu …. Appellant Versus Suram Singh and another. …. Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, J. Whether approved for reporting1? No For the appellant: Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate. V.K.Ahuja, J (Oral) This is an appeal filed by the appellant against the judgment of the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Una dated 6.8.2008 vide which the petition filed by the respondent No.1 under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act for declaring the marriage null and void was allowed by the learned trial Court. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a petition under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act for declaring his marriage with Respondent No.1 Smt. Reetu as null and void on the ground that the respondent No.1 was having a subsisting marriage at the time of solemnization of marriage in between the parties which was solemnized on 18.11.2004 at Dehra, District Kangra according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. The Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. 2 petitioner alleged that respondent No.1 was previously married to respondent No.2 and was having a son from that marriage. It was alleged that at the time of marriage in between the parties, respondent No.1 had disclosed the factum of previous marriage with respondent No.1 and that they had divorced each other. The respondent No.1 was alleged to have shown some divorce papers to the petitioner and thereafter the marriage was solemnized. It was further alleged that about one month prior to the filing of the petition, respondent No.2 met the petitioner and made inquiries about respondent No.1 and thereafter he learnt that no divorce had taken place in between respondents No.1 and 2 and therefore, the marriage was still subsisting. On persistent inquiries, initially the respondent No.1 failed to divulge any details but subsequently she admitted that there had been no legal divorce in between them and hence the petitioner filed the petition for divorce. 3. Respondent No.1 took up some preliminary objections. She submitted that the petitioner was aware of the customary divorce and after due satisfaction he had performed the marriage with her and as such the petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were settled: 1. Whether the marriage between the petitioner and respondent No.1 is nullity under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act as alleged? OPP 2. Whether the petition is not maintainable? OPR 3. Whether the petitioner is estopped to file the petition by his own act and conduct? OPR 4. Whether the Court has no jurisdiction to try the present suit? OPR 3 5. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPR 5. The parties led their evidence. The learned trial Court vide its impugned Judgment decided all the issues in favour of the petitioner and as against the respondent and allowed the petition declaring the marriage in between the parties and null and void. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. 7. The fact that respondent No.2 was already married with respondent No.2 and had also a son from the previous marriage was not disputed by respondent No.1. She is also alleged to have shown some divorce papers to the petitioner and the petitioner ought to have made allegations as to whether the papers were shown to him or not or that the papers were not divorce papers or some other papers which led him to believe that the marriage was still subsisting in between the parties. He did not make these allegations that these papers were not shown to him or that these were forged one. The fact remains that respondent No.1 was the legally wedded wife of respondent No.2 and there is no evidence on record led on behalf of the respondent No.1 that her marriage with respondent No.2 stood dissolved and thereafter she married the petitioner on 18.11.2004, Respondent No.1 failed to produce any document to show that her marriage respondent No.2 stood dissolved. 8. The net result of the above discussion is that her marriage with respondent No.2 was subsisting and she was not legally competent to solemnize marriage with the petitioner till her marriage with respondent No.2 was dissolved. Therefore, the 4 findings of the learned trial Court holding that the petitioner was entitled to a decree of nullity of marriage, calls for no interference by this Court and, as such, the same is liable to be dismissed and is dismissed accordingly and the findings of the learned trial Court are liable to be affirmed and are affirmed accordingly. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs. May 24, 2010 ( V.K. Ahuja ), (SDS) Judge