Originally posted by: determination
Firstly, I would like to apologize for quoting you. I am absolutely sorry. Please forgive me.
However, I beg to differ from your opinion that PuNir's marriage can be "voided" without divorce, as the relevant section you are talking about is Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which in full, reads as-
Voidable marriages.
(1) Any marriage solemnized, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, shall be voidable and may be annulled by a decree of nullity on any of the following grounds, namely:-
(a) that the marriage has not been consummated owing to the impotence of the respondent; or
(d) that the respondent was at the time of the marriage pregnant by some person other than the petitioner.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub- section (1), no petition for annulling a marriage-
(b) on the ground specified in clause (d) of sub- section (1) shall be entertained unless the court is satisfied-
(i) that the petitioner was at the time of the marriage ignorant of the facts alleged;
(ii) that proceedings have been instituted in the case of a marriage solemnized before the commencement of this Act within one year of such commencement and in the case of marriages solemnized after such commencement within one year from the date of the marriage; and
(iii) that marital intercourse with the consent of the petitioner has not taken place since the discovery by the petitioner of the existence of the said ground.
For non law scholars, I'll try to explain what the above mentioned section means-
1. The first reason given is that "they didnt consummate the marriage". This reason is not applicable for annulling the marriage.
Herein, the marriage can be voided only if PuNir did not consummate their marriage due to impotency. (As far as we know Onir is not impotent. If he is then this section can be applied).
2. The second reason given is that "Purvi was pregnant with someone else's child at the time of marriage".
Herein, 2 important legalities are involved, which are-
a. Section 12 (1) (d ) reads that "the respondent was at the time of the marriage pregnant by some person other than the petitioner". This obviously means that the respondent is the female (Purvi) here and the petitioner is the male (Onir), which implies that the case for declaring the marriage void has to be initiated by Onir. Purvi has no legal grounds to initiate a case for annulling the marriage under this section. Thus, Purvi or her family, acting on her behalf, will not have any locus standi to present their case.
b. If we accept that Onir, the husband, would make another "sacrifice" for his wife and initiate the proceedings for declaring the marriage void then also he needs to fulfil the non obstante clause, namely, Onir has to fulfil the stipulations mentioned under Section 12 (2) (b) (i). But, in this case, Onir already knew that Purvi was pregnant with someone else's baby. So, the court shall not entertain such an application of annulling the marriage.
So, under the given circumstances, PuNir's marriage is legal according to the non application of the above mentioned section. However, it may be annulled by applying some other relevant section under some other statute (that I am not aware of). I shall appreciate if anyone brings the relevant section (if any) to notice.
With that I would like rest my case.
I once again would like to say that I am extremely sorry if I hurt your feelings by quoting you, as someone might quote just to bash another. I had no such intention. My only concern was to bring the correct law to the front for every reader to judge.
Wish you the very best.
P.S. About the question of ArVi reuniting, I am of the belief that true love should win. So, if they love each other truly, then they deserve every happiness they can achieve together.
comment:
p_commentcount