Dismissed

Vivek Singh Parihar v. Smt.shweta @ Deepa Singh

Chhattisgarh HC5 Dec 2014FAM/70/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a first appeal under the Family Courts Act, the High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed the appellant's challenge to a lower court's order dismissing a petition for declaration of marriage void. The court held that epilepsy alone is not a ground for void marriage under Hindu Marriage Act Section 12.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; appellant at liberty to file petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

Vivek Singh Parihar Vs Smt.shweta @ Deepa Singh — Matrimonial and Divorce | Chhattisgarh HC (2014)

¶1

! mvwmm§$ m IN THE HON’BLE HIGH CO URT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR [c.m F.A. 1M) No .....¥Q....or 2014

¶2

APPELLNAT W Viv’e'k Singh Parihar Son of shri KB Slngh aged 32 years R/o " x “x” L B 2o Padum Nagar Bhllal 3 Post 8c Thana Puram Bh1la1 Tah311 85 Dlst. Durg (C.G.).

¶3

VERSUS

¶4

REPOD SNENT I

¶5

Smt Shweta @ Deepa Smgh W/ o' Shn Vivek Slngh Panhar R/o ' ' Vlllage Salalya, Post— ‘Manjhagavvan, Thana Sagra, ' Dist; Rewa(M.P.) '

¶6

FIRST APPEAL UNDER SECTION 19[1{ OF THE FAMILY COURTS ACT, 1984 ,

¶7

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH RII ASPIIR

¶8

First Appeal (M) No.70 of 2014

APPELLANT:

Vivek Singh Parihar

Versus

RE$PQNDENT:

Smt. Shweta @ Deepa Singh

¶14

{^{FirstappealunderSection19} (1)^{oftheFamilyCourtsAct,1984}}

¶15

Present:

¶16

Mr. R.S. Patel, counsel forthe appellant.

¶17

Mr. Rajendra Tripathi, counsel for the respondent.

¶18

Division Bench:

¶19

Hon’ble Mr. T.P. Sharma and Hon'ble Mr. LS. Uboweja. JJ.

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

(5-12-2014)

¶22

. l.A.No.1 for urgent hearing, perused and is allowed.

¶23

. By this appeal under Section 19 (1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, the appellant has challenged legality and propriety of the judgment & decree dated 23-7-2014 passed by the 15' Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg, in Civil Suit No.62A/2014, whereby the Family Court has dismissed the petition^{medonbehalfoftheappellantfordeclarationofmarriagevoidunder} Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

¶24

. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment & decree impugned.

¶25

. We are of the considered view that the ground relating to disease of the respondent i.e. epilepsy, by itself is not sufficient for declaration of marriage null and void under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

¶26

. Consequently, we do not find any substance in the appeal, the appeal^is liable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed. However, the appellant is at liberty to take appropriate step in terms of Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Parties shall bear their own costs.

¶27

Advocate fees, if certified, as perschedule.

¶28

Decree be drawn up accordingly.

¶29

,\ f, Sd/-. l T.P. Sharma l ‘ i Judge fl ,Soma y

¶30

Sdi— inder^{SinghUbovv'eia.} Judge

Vivek Singh Parihar v. Smt.shweta @ Deepa Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vivek Singh Parihar v. Smt.shweta @ Deepa Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Sandhya Goswami Vs Ayodhya Puri Goswami

Triloknath Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Prem Yadav and Another Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Bhuwan Lal Kaushik and Others Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Tamanna Khatun Vs Pintu @ Imtiyaz

Commissioner Of Income Tax Raipur Vs M/s Baleshwari Mandir Trust Samiti Dongargarh