Nidhi vs Parshant Arora

M.L. Singhal, J.—Facts.

Nidhi is the axle of the case. As per her, she never married Sanjay Bhardwaj of her free will and violation. Her marriage with Sanjay Bhardwaj is a

forced marriage. It has its origin in her abduction by him and then the use of force on her. She filed petition at Delhi in September 1999 u/s 12 of

the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for annulment of her alleged marriage with Sanjay Bhardwaj by decree of nullity, on the al- legations that she and

Sanjay Bhardwaj became acquainted with each other as she was studying in MFC 2 year in Punjab University, Chandigarh while Sanjay Bhardwaj

is residing at 707, Sector 2, Panchkula. He used to misbehave with her and her parents. She snapped her acquaintances with him. Thereupon, he

apologized to her and her parents and sent them cards to that effect. In one of the cards, he admitted that she had not loved him. He further

admitted that she had changed her feelings towards him and, therefore, he was getting married to another girl on 15th of May. On 15.5.99, she

along with her friend Amisha went to Sector 15 market for buying mushrooms. While she was waiting for her friend, he came to her saying that he

wanted to talk to her for a minute. He forcibly pushed her into a car and drove towards Mohali. At that time, he was drunk and was carrying a

bottle of liquor with him. She requested him to let her go but he did not agree and threatened that he would strangulate her and kill her if she raised

noise. He did not restore her to her parents although her father had called him on his mobile phone. He became angry and said that he was taking

her with him. He drove towards Delhi. Her father reported the matter to the police which was recorded at PS Sector 36, Chandigarh. She was

taken to Delhi at the residence of one of his uncles. She informed his uncle that she did not warn to marry him. He solemnized marriage with her at

Arya Sarnaj Mandir Delhi at the point of knife. She did not go through the ceremony of marriage of her free will, consent and volition. Marriage

was forced upon her. It was no marriage in the eye of law as this was forced marriage. None of her relations/members of the family was present at

the time of marriage. ""Kanyadan"" was not given by her father or any other member of her family. She was subjected to sexual intercourse by him

on 16.5.1999 and 17.5.1999 against her will and without her consent. It was forcible sexual intercourse which he had with her. From Delhi, on

20.5.1999, he took her to Bhubanesh-war. From there, he took her to Gopalpur at the residence of his friend one RajivGupta. He kept her there

till 26.5.1999. He did not let hercontact her father. She informed Shri Rajiv Gupta that he had forcibly, without her consent solemnised marriage

with her. On receiving information from his father that her father had got case registered against him, he and Rajiv Gupta decided to get the

marriage registered. He could not get the marriage registered as she was required to go to the Magistrate.

Treating her marriage as no marriage in the eye of law having origin in abduction, she married Parshant Arora. Her case is that her marriage with

Parshant Arora is a valid marriage as when she married Parshant Arora, she was an unmarried girl. Her marriage with Parshant Arora was her first

marriage.

Parshant Arora taking his marriage with Nidhi as no marriage in the eye of law; it being her second marriage, during the subsistence of her

marriage with San-jay Bhardwaj. filed petition for decree of nullity of marriage under Sections 11 and 12 of the Hindu Mar- riage Act, 1955 in

Karnal Court. It was alleged by Par-sham Arora in his petition that his marriage with Nidhi was got registered with the Registrar of Marriages,

Kamal on 2.6.1999 after observing the necessary legal formalities. In fact a ring ceremony was performed on 1.6.1999 and no marriage/mukiawa

ceremony took place. His marriage with Nidhi was not consummated as there was no marriage between them in the eye of law. Law did not clothe

them with the status of husband and wife. His parents were in search of a good match for him. Nidhi was suggested for marriage to him by their

common friends namely Shri Ved Parkash Mehta and S.K.Chawia residents of Karnal on 28.5.1999. Meeting was arranged at Kama Lake,

Karnal where he and Nidhi saw each other for the first time in the presence of their respective parents and friends. Since he and Nidhi had

consented to their marriage, ring ceremony was arranged on 1.6.1999 at Hotel Jewels, Karnal which was attended by their parents, some of their

relatives and friends. It was decided that the marriage/mukiawa ceremony shall be performed in September/October 1999 when the Visa process

would be over (it may be mentioned here that Parshant Arora is NRI residing in Canada) and with this intention, the so-called marriage between

him and Nidhi was got registered. Since fraud was discovered before the visa papers could be submitted for obtaining visa, the same were not

moved to the concerned authority. Marriage between him and Nidhi on the basis of marriage certificate dated 2.6.1999 is null and void as Nidhi

had already a spouse living namely Sanjay Bhardwaj at the time of registration of her marriage with him. It was alleged by Parshant Arora that his

marriage with Nidhi was in violation of Section 5(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and as such is void u/s 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

It was also alleged by Parshant Arora that the so-called marriage between him and Nidhi was liable to be annulled as his consent for matrimonial

alliance with Nidhi was obtained after practising fraud on him i.e. by concealing the fact of her earlier subsisting marriage with Sanjay Bhardwaj.

Had the factum of her subsisting marriage with Sanjay Bhardwaj been disclosed to him, he would never have consented to his marriage with her. It

was not disclosed to him that her father has got registered a case against Sanjay Bhardwaj under Sections 363, 366, 376, 420, 120B IPC at PS

Sector 36, Chandigarh. It was also not disclosed to him and his parents that she had got herself medically examined on 28.5.1999 and also that

her statement was recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate at Chandigarh.

Nidhi filed application dated 25.9.2000 u/s 10 CPC before the Karnal Court for stay of the proceedings before him during the pendency of the

proceedings at Delhi Court. Vide order dated 17.10.2000, Additional District Judge, Karnal dismissed this application moved by her u/s 10 CPC.

Aggrieved from this order dated 17.10.2000, Nidhi and her father have come up in revision to this Court.

In my opinion, there was absolutely no point in Nidhi''s prayer for the stay of proceedings in the petition for decree of nullity of marriage filed by

Parshant Arora at Kamal under Sections 11 and 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act. as in this petition, he has arrayed Sanjay Dhardwaj also. In this

petition, the attempt of Ntdbi would be to show that she never married Sanjay Bhardwaj and her so called marriage with Sanjay Bhardwaj had its

origin in abduction and force. If she is able to prove that her marriage with Sanjay Bhardwaj was no marriage in the eye of law and that marriage

had been forced upon her by Sanjay Bhardwaj who had abducted her, that would clear the way for her marriage to Parshant Arorj in this petition,

the at-lempt of Sanjay Bhardwaj would be that Nidhi had married him of her free will and volition and she was in enduring love with him and their

love for each other fructified into their marriage. If Sanjay Bhardwaj is able to prove that Nidhi had married him of her free will and volition,

marriage of Parshant Arora assuming that marriage ceremony took place, would be no marriage in the eye of law as that marriage would be void

being in contravention of Section 5(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act. Marriage with person having a living spouse is null and void. It is complete

nullity.

In this petition filed by Parshant Arora at Karnal under Seclions 11 and 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, validity or otherwise of both these

marriages will be gone into and, therefore, there was no point in Nidhi''s prayer for the stay of this petition during the pendency of the petition at

Delhi. In the petition filed by Nidhi at Delhi, only the question of validity or otherwise of her alleged marriage with Sanjay Bhardwaj will be gone

into. Any finding given in the petition at Delhi will not be binding on Parshant Arora as he is not a party thereto.

In this case, requirements of Section 10 CPC are not fulfilled. Section 10 CPC lays down as follows :-"" 10. Stay of suit - No Court shall

proceed with the trial of any suit in which the matter in issue is also directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit between the same

parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim litigating under the same title where such suit is pending in the same or any other

Court in India having jurisdiction to grant the relief claimed, or in any Court beyond the limits of India established or continued by the Central

Government and having like jurisdiction, or before the Supreme Court.

In the petition pending at Delhi, thus, the parties are not the same who are parties in the petition filed by Parshant Arora at Karnal. In the petition

filed by Nidhi at Delhi, only Sanjay Bhardwaj has been impleaded. In the petition filed by Parshant Arora at Karnal. he has impleaded Nidhi,

Sanjay Bhardwaj as well. For the adjudication of the matter in controversy between the parties, the presence of Nidhi, Parshant Arora and San-

jay Bhardwaj has to be together in one petition. Since the petition at Delhi was filed in September 1999 an the petition at Kamal was filed in July

1999, the petition filed at Karnal cannot be stayed because u/s 10 CPC, only a subsequently instituted case can be stayed. Section 10 CPC will

be applicable only when the scope of the case subsequently instituted is the same. In this case, the scope of the two petitions is not the same. At

Karnal, the question to be determined is whether Parshant Arora''s marriage with Nidhi is nullity being in contravention of Section 5(1) of the

Hindu Marriage Act. At Delhi the question to be determined is whether the marriage of Nidhi with Sanjay Bhardwaj has iis origin in abduct ion and

force and was thus voidable u/s 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act. At Delhi if Nidhi chooses to accept her marriage with Sanjay Bhardwaj as marriage

having been entered by her of her free will and volition, it will be good marriage. It is, thus, clear that the application u/s 10 CPC moved by Nidhi

at Karnal was wholly misconceived and was not at all tenable. So, this revision fails and is dismissed No order as to costs.

Revision dismissed.