Parrli Vaijnath Case Study
01. The petitioner has filed present petition under Section 13 (1) (i-a) & (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act for getting divorce.
02. In short, it is a case of the petitioner that the marriage of the petitioner and respondent had taken place on 16/02/2005 at Parli Vaijnath, Tq. Parli Vaijnath, Dist. Beed as per Hindu rites and rituals. The marital relationship between the parties is still in subsisting. After marriage, the respondent came to the house of the petitioner at Parli Vaijnath for cohabitation. Thereafter, they went to Mundra Kutch in Gujarat State, as the petitioner was working in Adani Port, Mundra (Gujarat). The respondent cohabited with the petitioner nicely for near about two years. During that period, the respondent has …show more content…
The petitioner in support of his contention examined himself as PW No. 01 (Exh.No. 11), Shri. Dhiraj Deoram Parmar as PW No. 02 (Exh.No. 12), Shri. Nandkishor Dayaram Parmar as PW No. 03 (Exh. No. 17) and closed his evidence vide evidence closing pursis (Exh.No.25). In addition to the above oral evidence, the petitioner has produced on record certain documents such as original marriage card, application for conciliation, office copy of notice, letter issued by Shri. Kutch Gurjar Kshatriya Samaj with Marathi translation, affidavit of the translator, resignation letter, copy of maintenance petition, withdrawal pursis, divorce deed …show more content…
Shri. H. V. Bhairat, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the respondent has executed deed of divorce in presence of panch witnesses as per custom prevailing in their caste. In this regard, he invited my attention towards divorce deed and compromise pursis filed in maintenance petition (Exh.Nos. 30 & 31). However, it is well settled that the marriage of Hindu cannot be dissolved by any such document without decree of divorce by the competent court. Hence, there is no force in the above submission of learned counsel for the petitioner. In view of my above discussion, I come to the conclusion that the petitioner has failed to prove cruelty or desertion for granting decree of divorce in his favour. In the result he is not entitled for decree of divorce as prayed. Hence, I answer issue nos. 01 to 03 in the negative and in reply to issue no. 04, pass the following
02. In short, it is a case of the petitioner that the marriage of the petitioner and respondent had taken place on 16/02/2005 at Parli Vaijnath, Tq. Parli Vaijnath, Dist. Beed as per Hindu rites and rituals. The marital relationship between the parties is still in subsisting. After marriage, the respondent came to the house of the petitioner at Parli Vaijnath for cohabitation. Thereafter, they went to Mundra Kutch in Gujarat State, as the petitioner was working in Adani Port, Mundra (Gujarat). The respondent cohabited with the petitioner nicely for near about two years. During that period, the respondent has …show more content…
The petitioner in support of his contention examined himself as PW No. 01 (Exh.No. 11), Shri. Dhiraj Deoram Parmar as PW No. 02 (Exh.No. 12), Shri. Nandkishor Dayaram Parmar as PW No. 03 (Exh. No. 17) and closed his evidence vide evidence closing pursis (Exh.No.25). In addition to the above oral evidence, the petitioner has produced on record certain documents such as original marriage card, application for conciliation, office copy of notice, letter issued by Shri. Kutch Gurjar Kshatriya Samaj with Marathi translation, affidavit of the translator, resignation letter, copy of maintenance petition, withdrawal pursis, divorce deed …show more content…
Shri. H. V. Bhairat, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the respondent has executed deed of divorce in presence of panch witnesses as per custom prevailing in their caste. In this regard, he invited my attention towards divorce deed and compromise pursis filed in maintenance petition (Exh.Nos. 30 & 31). However, it is well settled that the marriage of Hindu cannot be dissolved by any such document without decree of divorce by the competent court. Hence, there is no force in the above submission of learned counsel for the petitioner. In view of my above discussion, I come to the conclusion that the petitioner has failed to prove cruelty or desertion for granting decree of divorce in his favour. In the result he is not entitled for decree of divorce as prayed. Hence, I answer issue nos. 01 to 03 in the negative and in reply to issue no. 04, pass the following