THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY FAMILY COURT APPEAL No. 54 of 2014 JUDGMENT: (per Justice M. Satyanarayana Murthy) The unsuccessful petitioner in O.P.No.286 of 2013 on the file of the learned Judge, Additional Family Court, Hyderabad, filed this appeal challenging the order of rejection of the petition under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C.
The appellant filed the aforesaid O.P. under Section 12(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’), for annulment of marriage between herself and the respondent, on the ground of fraud. As the petition was filed within one year from the date of marriage, the trial Court took an objection as to the maintainability of the petition in view of the interdict contained under Section 14 of the Act, and accordingly rejected the petition, basing on Section 14 of the Act.
The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the bar under Section 14 of the Act is applicable only to the divorce petitions, but not to the petition under Section 12 of the Act.
Admittedly, the present petition is filed under Section 12(1)(c) of the Act, for annulment of the marriage on the ground that the consent of the appellant was obtained by fraud. Therefore, the bar under Section 14 of the Act has no application to the present facts of the case. Hence, the order passed by the trial Court is erroneous and the same is liable to be set aside.
Accordingly, the order under appeal is set aside. The trial Court is directed to register the petition and decide the same in accordance with law.
The Family Court Appeal is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above.
RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, J 3rd September, 2014 IBL