Citation: AIR 2011 SC 2077
Date Of Judgement: 10 May 2011
Parties Involved: Petitioner- Prema; Respondent- Nanje Gowda
The appellant is a pilot with the Indian Air Force and was posted as Pilot Officer at Hakimpet in April 1997. In the last week of April 1997, the appellant was traveling by train from Delhi to Hyderabad wherein the respondent also happened to be traveling and at which time she introduced herself as Bhavana and claimed to be the Vice Principal of St. Peters Convent, Vikas Puri, New Delhi, and a journalist. During the conversation, the respondent claimed to be a spinster, aged 27 years, and disclosed that she was traveling to Hyderabad in connection with a book she was writing on Anglo Indians. Much later the appellant learned that she had visited Hyderabad for appearing in her B.A. examination from Osmania University.
Subsequently, both of them met at Delhi in the first week of July 1997 and March 1998 and ultimately the respondent tricked the appellant into marrying her on 28.11.1999 at Arya Samaj Mandir, Bikaner, Rajasthan as per Hindu rites. The respondent also gave a written affidavit to the Arya Samaj Mandir that she was a Hindu, a spinster, and was never married before. In January 2000, the respondent’s father met the appellant at Sona Rupa Restaurant in Nehru Place, New Delhi and it emerged during the conversation that the respondent was a Muslim and her actual name was Sahar Wasif and her previous marriage had taken place according to Muslim Law with a Muslim-Wasif Khalil after her conversion to Islam and had two children out.
The appellant was shocked and devastated to hear all this. On 22.07.2000, an FIR was registered against the respondent and her brother under Sections 406, 419 and 420 of the IPC at New Delhi.
The appellant, thereafter, filed Suit under Sections 5 and 12 of the HMA. Before the trial Court, the appellant narrated as to how he was deceived and cheated by the respondent and also claimed that the parties to the petition have been living separately from the date of marriage itself and have had no cohabitation and nor was there any consummation for which reason no issue was born out of the wedlock.
The trial Court, by order dated 07.03.2006, declared the marriage between the parties to the petition a nullity and also ordered the appellant to pay Rs. 2,000/- per month as permanent alimony to the respondent towards her maintenance.
Whether the Appellant, who failed in her challenge to the preliminary decree passed in a suit for partition can seek enhancement of her share in the joint family property in the final decree proceedings in terms of Section 6A of Hindu Succession Act, 1956?
Since the respondent-wife established her claim that on the date of marriage with the appellant she was a Hindu and the same is permissible under Section 5 of the Act, we agree with the conclusion arrived at by the High Court and reject the argument of the counsel for the appellant. Given the above discussion and conclusion, we find no merit in the appeal. Consequently, the same is dismissed.
In the present case, the court explained that a preliminary decree can be varied if the law affecting Parties is changed before the passing of the final decree. The court Must take into consideration the amended law and a second decree accordingly.