STOCK MARKET BSE NSE

SC quashes HC order to pay maintenance

Published: 19th December 2012 09:31 AM  |   Last Updated: 19th December 2012 09:31 AM   |  A+A-

The Supreme Court on Tuesday dismissed a Jharkhand High Court order which waived off a man from paying maintenance to his wife on the ground that their marriage was not valid as she had concealed her earlier marraige. The apex court said without a declaration from a competent court the marriage was still legally valid.

Deoki Panjhiyiara and Shashi Bhushan Narayan Azad were married in 2006. On a petition by her under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, the trial court by an interim order, directed Azad on February 13, 2008, to pay her `2,000 every month.  Challenging this, Azad moved the High Court with a writ petition and also filed an application before the trial court seeking a recall on the order. He said that his marriage with Deoki was not valid, since at the time of thier marriage, she was already married to a man named Rohit Kumar Mishra.

In support of his contention, he placed before the trial court their marriage certificate dated April 18, 2003. The trial court rejected his application.

But, the High Court passed an order, which said that the marriage certificate is  proof of the first marriage of Deoki with Rohit which had the effect of rendering the marriage between the Deoki and Azad void.

Challenging this order of the High Court, Deoki moved the apex court. A Bench comprising Justice P Sathasivam and Justice Ranjan Gogoi said that in the present case the appellant Deoki had denied that she was married to anyone called Rohit Kumar Mishra.

The Bench said that if according to Azad the marriage between him and Deoki is void on account of the previous marriage, he ought to have obtained the necessary declaration from the competent court.

The Bench set aside the order of the High Court and said: “We hold that in the present case until the invalidation of the marriage between the appellant and the respondent is made by a competent court, it would only be correct to proceed on the basis that the appellant continues to be the wife of the respondent so as to entitle her to claim all benefits and protection available under the DV Act, 2005.”



Comments

Disclaimer : We respect your thoughts and views! But we need to be judicious while moderating your comments. All the comments will be moderated by the newindianexpress.com editorial. Abstain from posting comments that are obscene, defamatory or inflammatory, and do not indulge in personal attacks. Try to avoid outside hyperlinks inside the comment. Help us delete comments that do not follow these guidelines.

The views expressed in comments published on newindianexpress.com are those of the comment writers alone. They do not represent the views or opinions of newindianexpress.com or its staff, nor do they represent the views or opinions of The New Indian Express Group, or any entity of, or affiliated with, The New Indian Express Group. newindianexpress.com reserves the right to take any or all comments down at any time.

IPL_2020
flipboard facebook twitter whatsapp