The High Court dismissed an appeal against an order setting aside an ex parte decree declaring a marriage void. The court held there was no error in the Family Court's finding that the respondent lacked prior knowledge of the suit.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 1
Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 122 of 2022
Appellant :- Sharad Verma Respondent :- Ritu Katiyar Counsel for Appellant :- Vishal Kumar Upadhyay
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.
the appellant made a mention of the Suit No. 345 of 2012 filed under section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which had already been decided ex parte .
daily newspaper, which is not circulated in Farrukhabad, where she resides. There is no other material to establish that the respondent had knowledge of the proceedings of the suit, therefore, we do not find any error or illegality in the order dated 8.10.2022 passed by the Family Court allowing the respondent's application under Order IX Rule 13, C.P.C. The appeal lacks merits and the same is, accordingly, dismissed .
( Subhash Vidarthi, J. ) ( Ramesh Sinha, J. )
Order Date :- 9.2.2023 A.Nigam
Digitally signed by :- ANUJ NIGAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Family Court committed an error in allowing the respondent's application to set aside the ex parte decree declaring the marriage void.
Whether the respondent had prior knowledge of the suit proceedings at the time they were filed.
4 provisions across 4 enactments
Sharad Verma
Ritu Katiyar
Ramesh Sinha
Subhash Vidyarthi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
