Jatin Duggal Alias Jitendra Duggal And Another vs Sonia Duggal

Ravindra Maithani, J

Respondent has filed a petition under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for declaring the marriage between appellant no.1 and respondent as null and void. On the basis of it, proceedings of Original Suit No. 130 of 2012 Smt. Sonia vs. Jitendra Duggal & another were instituted in the Court of Family Judge, Dehradun (for short "the suit"). In the suit, it appears that an application 72A1 was filed by the appellant no.1 with the averments, therein, that the respondent be directed to file an affidavit to the effect that on the date of dishonour of cheque she had fulfilled the condition of compromise and also she should be directed to handover the policies/documents to the appellant no.1. It was also requested in the application that the appellant no.1 be permitted to deposit a cheque of Rs.2,00,000/- in favour of the respondent. Another application 78C2 was also filed by the appellant no.1 for permission to take on record some cheques and letters and also requested that the suit be dismissed, accordingly.

In the suit, on 19.01.2018, issues have been framed. The appellants preferred this appeal seeking directions that the court below may be directed to decide applications 72A1 and 78C2.

Learned counsel for the appellants would urge that in fact, earlier appellant no.1 and respondent were married, but, their marriage was dissolved by way of consent decree dated 23.05.2011 but, the respondent did not perform the part of her obligation under compromise, though, appellant no.1 was ready and willing to do so. Appellant no.1, in fact, had given an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- to the respondent, but, the respondent did not return the policies under compromise. Appellant no.1 had no other option, but, to stop the payment of cheque of Rs.2,00,000/-, which was issued in favour of respondent. Therefore, it is argued that by way of application 72A1 what the appellants have desired is that appellant no.1 be permitted to deposit a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- in the court and by way of application 78C2, it was requested that the certain documents be taken on record and the suit be dismissed. Learned counsel would urge that before framing the issues, it was obligatory on the part of court below to decide the said applications. But, it was not done therefore, directions be issued in this regard.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent would urge that the suit has been filed for declaring the marriage as null and void because, in the earlier suit, the marriage between appellant no.1 and respondent was dissolved on the basis of compromise, but the appellant no.1 did not perform his part of obligation, therefore, the consent decree cannot be said to be effective and it is null and void and whatever is being requested by way of application 72A1 and 78C2 are covered by issue no.1 in the suit.

The suit has been filed by the respondent declaring the marriage between the appellant no.1 and her as null and void on the ground that earlier the respondent and appellant no.1 was married; their marriage was dissolved by way of consent decree dated 23.05.2011 but, the appellant no.1 did not perform his part of obligation. Here is the dispute as to who had not performed the obligation on their part. This court need not go into details at this stage. The facts remains that the suit has been filed on the ground that since the obligations under consent decree were not performed, the decree cannot be held to be valid. Therefore, the second marriage of the appellant no.1 with appellant no.2 is null and void. Issue no.1 framed in the suit is reproduced hereunder:-

(i) Whether the decree passed in Original Suit no.63 of 2009 between appellant no.1 and respondent is null and ineffective.

This Court is of the view that the parties would be at liberty to lead evidence at this issue to indicate as to what is the effect of the decree passed in the earlier suit and whether the parties have performed their part of obligation, and if any of the parties did not perform their part of obligations, the reasons thereof and in totality the effect would be seen with respect to the consent decree dated 23.05.2011. By way of application 72A1, the appellant no.1 in fact wants to deposit the amount in the Court, which the Court has deferred and by way of application no.78C2, while pleading the facts it was requested that the suit be dismissed. These are all factual aspects of the matter, which are covered under issue no.1, therefore, this Court is of the view that separate directions need not be issued to decide those applications, which may be considered by the Court below while deciding issue no.1.

With the above observations, no interference is warranted in this matter and the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

The appeal is accordingly dismissed.