High CourtsSingle Bench(2019) 11 GUJ CK 0017

Dayaben Kanubhai Gajera vs State Of Gujarat

Gujarat High Court · Decided on 29 November 2019

HON’BLE JUDGES
A.G.Uraizee, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
R/Special Civil Application No. 15874 Of 2019

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

9 paragraphs · 299 words

A.G.Uraizee, J

1.

Heard Mr. S.L.Vaishya, learned advocate for the petitioner.

2.

Following prayers are made:

"(a) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to admit and allow this petition;

(b) Your Lordship may kindly be pleased to pass order cancel the bogus marriage registration of respondent No.1 and 3 marriage certificate dated 9/4/2011.

(c) Any other and further relief/s which be fit and proper be granted by this Hon'ble Court in the interest of justice."

3.

Mr. Vaishya, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner married to respondent No.3 and got their marriage registered with respondent No.2 by surreptitious means. He submitted that therefore, the so-called marriage of the petitioner and respondent No.3 is required to be cancelled C/SCA/15874/2019 ORDER by giving necessary directions to respondent No.2. He submitted that the petition therefore requires consideration.

4.

As per the averments made in the petition, the marriage between the petitioner and respondent No.3 was registered with respondent No.2 on 09.04.2011. It is further stated in the petition that the petitioner and respondent No.3 both were working as diamond cutters and thereby respondent No.3 earned the confidence of the petitioner and got photo copy of ration card and birth certificate on the pretext that he would arrange for the insurance in the night. Instead, by using the photo copies of ration card and birth certificate, he got the marriage registered on 11.04.2009. It is thus very clear from the averments made in the petition that the disputed question of facts are involved and efficacious remedy is available to the petitioner for redressal of her grievances. I am therefore, of the view that the prayers made in the present petition cannot be granted in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The petition, therefore, is rejected in limine.