{"id":200433,"date":"2018-08-21T11:10:36","date_gmt":"2018-08-21T05:40:36","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=200433"},"modified":"2018-08-22T16:58:43","modified_gmt":"2018-08-22T11:28:43","slug":"a-compromise-not-to-interfere-in-each-others-life-does-not-dissolve-first-marriage-second-marriage-held-void","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/08\/21\/a-compromise-not-to-interfere-in-each-others-life-does-not-dissolve-first-marriage-second-marriage-held-void\/","title":{"rendered":"A compromise not to interfere in each other’s life does not dissolve first marriage; second marriage held void"},"content":{"rendered":"

Delhi High Court: <\/strong>A Division Bench comprising of G.S. Sistani and Sangita Dhingra Sehgal, JJ. dismissed an appeal filed under Section 19 of Family Courts\u00a0 Act, 1984 challenging the order of Principal Judge whereby the marriage between the parties was declared null void.<\/p>\n

The husband filed a petition under Section 12 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 against the wife seeking a declaration that the marriage between the parties be declared null and void. The ground taken being that on the date of marriage, the wife already had a living spouse. The petition disclosed that the wife had married one Manoj Kumar; and with the intervention of respectable persons of the society, an agreement to dissolve the marriage was reduced into writing and signed by respective father of the parties. The Principal Judge allowed the petition and the marriage between husband and wife was declared null and void under Section 11. Aggrieved thus, the wife preferred the instant appeal. Counsel appearing for the wife submitted that the first marriage was dissolved as per customs and thus the order impugned was liable to be set aside.<\/p>\n

The High Court perused the record. It was noticed that the document so executed, as aforementioned, was a compromise with effect that either of the parties would not interfere in the life of the other in future. The Court was of the view that submission made by the counsel for the wife could not be accepted in light of Section 11 (void marriages) read with Section 5 (conditions for a Hindu marriage). Furthermore, the document so executed did not bear signature of the parties but of their respective father. In view of the express bar under Section 5(i), the Court found no infirmity in the order impugned. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed. [Meenakshi Sharma v. Ravi Kumar,2018 SCC OnLine Del 10379<\/a>, dated 09-07-2018]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Delhi High Court: A Division Bench comprising of G.S. Sistani and Sangita Dhingra Sehgal, JJ. dismissed an appeal filed under Section 19 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":8808,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,10],"tags":[31527,31529,31528],"class_list":["post-200433","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-first-marriage","tag-section-12-of-hindu-marriage-act-1955","tag-section-19-of-family-courts-act-1984"],"yoast_head":"\nA compromise not to interfere in each other's life does not dissolve first marriage; second marriage held void | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/08\/21\/a-compromise-not-to-interfere-in-each-others-life-does-not-dissolve-first-marriage-second-marriage-held-void\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"A compromise not to interfere in each other's life does not dissolve first marriage; second marriage held void\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Delhi High Court: A Division Bench comprising of G.S. Sistani and Sangita Dhingra Sehgal, JJ. dismissed an appeal filed under Section 19\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/08\/21\/a-compromise-not-to-interfere-in-each-others-life-does-not-dissolve-first-marriage-second-marriage-held-void\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2018-08-21T05:40:36+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-08-22T11:28:43+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/10\/Delhi-HC.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1329\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"888\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Bhumika Indulia\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Bhumika Indulia\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"2 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2018\\\/08\\\/21\\\/a-compromise-not-to-interfere-in-each-others-life-does-not-dissolve-first-marriage-second-marriage-held-void\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2018\\\/08\\\/21\\\/a-compromise-not-to-interfere-in-each-others-life-does-not-dissolve-first-marriage-second-marriage-held-void\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Bhumika Indulia\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a\"},\"headline\":\"A compromise not to interfere in each other’s life does not dissolve first marriage; second marriage held void\",\"datePublished\":\"2018-08-21T05:40:36+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-22T11:28:43+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2018\\\/08\\\/21\\\/a-compromise-not-to-interfere-in-each-others-life-does-not-dissolve-first-marriage-second-marriage-held-void\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":320,\"commentCount\":0,\"keywords\":[\"First Marriage\",\"Section 12 of Hindu Marriage Act 1955\",\"Section 19 of Family Courts\u00a0 Act 1984\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Case Briefs\",\"High Courts\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2018\\\/08\\\/21\\\/a-compromise-not-to-interfere-in-each-others-life-does-not-dissolve-first-marriage-second-marriage-held-void\\\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2018\\\/08\\\/21\\\/a-compromise-not-to-interfere-in-each-others-life-does-not-dissolve-first-marriage-second-marriage-held-void\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2018\\\/08\\\/21\\\/a-compromise-not-to-interfere-in-each-others-life-does-not-dissolve-first-marriage-second-marriage-held-void\\\/\",\"name\":\"A compromise not to interfere in each other's life does not dissolve first marriage; second marriage held void | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2018-08-21T05:40:36+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-22T11:28:43+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2018\\\/08\\\/21\\\/a-compromise-not-to-interfere-in-each-others-life-does-not-dissolve-first-marriage-second-marriage-held-void\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2018\\\/08\\\/21\\\/a-compromise-not-to-interfere-in-each-others-life-does-not-dissolve-first-marriage-second-marriage-held-void\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2018\\\/08\\\/21\\\/a-compromise-not-to-interfere-in-each-others-life-does-not-dissolve-first-marriage-second-marriage-held-void\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"A compromise not to interfere in each other’s life does not dissolve first marriage; second marriage held void\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a\",\"name\":\"Bhumika Indulia\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2021\\\/04\\\/Me-150x150.jpg\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2021\\\/04\\\/Me-150x150.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2021\\\/04\\\/Me-150x150.jpg\",\"caption\":\"Bhumika Indulia\"},\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/author\\\/editor_1\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"A compromise not to interfere in each other's life does not dissolve first marriage; second marriage held void | SCC Times","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/08\/21\/a-compromise-not-to-interfere-in-each-others-life-does-not-dissolve-first-marriage-second-marriage-held-void\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"A compromise not to interfere in each other's life does not dissolve first marriage; second marriage held void","og_description":"Delhi High Court: A Division Bench comprising of G.S. Sistani and Sangita Dhingra Sehgal, JJ. dismissed an appeal filed under Section 19","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/08\/21\/a-compromise-not-to-interfere-in-each-others-life-does-not-dissolve-first-marriage-second-marriage-held-void\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2018-08-21T05:40:36+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-08-22T11:28:43+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1329,"height":888,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/10\/Delhi-HC.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Bhumika Indulia","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Bhumika Indulia","Est. reading time":"2 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/08\/21\/a-compromise-not-to-interfere-in-each-others-life-does-not-dissolve-first-marriage-second-marriage-held-void\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/08\/21\/a-compromise-not-to-interfere-in-each-others-life-does-not-dissolve-first-marriage-second-marriage-held-void\/"},"author":{"name":"Bhumika Indulia","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a"},"headline":"A compromise not to interfere in each other’s life does not dissolve first marriage; second marriage held void","datePublished":"2018-08-21T05:40:36+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-22T11:28:43+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/08\/21\/a-compromise-not-to-interfere-in-each-others-life-does-not-dissolve-first-marriage-second-marriage-held-void\/"},"wordCount":320,"commentCount":0,"keywords":["First Marriage","Section 12 of Hindu Marriage Act 1955","Section 19 of Family Courts\u00a0 Act 1984"],"articleSection":["Case Briefs","High Courts"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/08\/21\/a-compromise-not-to-interfere-in-each-others-life-does-not-dissolve-first-marriage-second-marriage-held-void\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/08\/21\/a-compromise-not-to-interfere-in-each-others-life-does-not-dissolve-first-marriage-second-marriage-held-void\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/08\/21\/a-compromise-not-to-interfere-in-each-others-life-does-not-dissolve-first-marriage-second-marriage-held-void\/","name":"A compromise not to interfere in each other's life does not dissolve first marriage; second marriage held void | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"datePublished":"2018-08-21T05:40:36+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-22T11:28:43+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/08\/21\/a-compromise-not-to-interfere-in-each-others-life-does-not-dissolve-first-marriage-second-marriage-held-void\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/08\/21\/a-compromise-not-to-interfere-in-each-others-life-does-not-dissolve-first-marriage-second-marriage-held-void\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/08\/21\/a-compromise-not-to-interfere-in-each-others-life-does-not-dissolve-first-marriage-second-marriage-held-void\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"A compromise not to interfere in each other’s life does not dissolve first marriage; second marriage held void"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a","name":"Bhumika Indulia","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg","caption":"Bhumika Indulia"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_1\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":254822,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/09\/28\/where-minor-wife-fails-to-obtain-decree-of-nullity-before-attaining-age-of-majority-the-marriage-becomes-a-valid-one\/","url_meta":{"origin":200433,"position":0},"title":"[Child Marriage] P&H HC | Where minor wife fails to obtain decree of nullity before attaining age of majority, the marriage becomes a valid one; HC interprets","author":"Editor","date":"September 28, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Punjab and Haryana High Court: The Division Bench of Ritu Bahri and Arun Monga, JJ., held that in case of child marriage, the marriage is voidable not void and a petition for nullity under Section 13(2)(iv) could only be filed if she-wife had got married at the age of 15\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":257679,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/11\/25\/marriage-with-a-minor-is-valid-if-no-attempt-is-made-to-declare-it-invalid-once-the-child-turns-major\/","url_meta":{"origin":200433,"position":1},"title":"[Child Marriage] P&H HC | Marriage with a minor is valid if no attempt is made to declare it invalid once the child turns major","author":"Editor","date":"November 25, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Punjab and Haryana High Court: The Division Bench of Ritu Bahri and Arun Monga, JJ., held that marriage with minor is valid if no attempt is made to declare the same invalid once the child turns 18. The brief facts of the present case were that at the time of\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":91811,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/12\/13\/for-an-appeal-filed-under-section-191-of-family-courts-act-1984-period-of-limitation-prescribed-under-section-284-of-hindu-marriage-act-1955-shall-apply\/","url_meta":{"origin":200433,"position":2},"title":"For an appeal filed under Section 19(1) of Family Courts Act, 1984, period of limitation prescribed under Section 28(4) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 shall apply","author":"Saba","date":"December 13, 2016","format":false,"excerpt":"Bombay High Court: While deciding upon the issue framed by the Division Bench of this Court that whether an appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 will be governed by the period of limitation under Section 19(3) of the 1984 Act or whether the period of limitation\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":6361,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2014\/11\/01\/parsi-man-s-plea-to-nullify-wedlock-under-hindu-marriage-act-rejected\/","url_meta":{"origin":200433,"position":3},"title":"Parsi man’s plea to nullify wedlock under Hindu Marriage Act rejected","author":"Sucheta","date":"November 1, 2014","format":false,"excerpt":"Bombay High Court: Dismissing a plea by a Parsi man to declare his 15 year old marriage to a Hindu woman null and void as their wedding was arranged in accordance with Hindu vedic rites although they belonged to different religions, a bench comprising of V K Tahilramani and A\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "High Courts"","block_context":{"text":"High Courts","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/highcourts\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":216460,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/07\/04\/ph-hc-wife-entitled-to-permanent-alimony-even-if-a-decree-declaring-her-marriage-null-and-void-has-been-passed-against-her-under-s-11-of-hma\/","url_meta":{"origin":200433,"position":4},"title":"P&H HC | Wife entitled to permanent alimony even if a decree declaring her marriage null and void has been passed under S. 11 of HMA","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"July 4, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Punjab and Haryana High Court: A Division Bench of Rakesh Kumar Jain and Harnaresh Singh Gill, JJ. allowed an appeal asking for entitlement to permanent alimony in terms of Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The marriage of the parties was solemnized on 11-6-2012 as per Hindu Sikh\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":222153,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/11\/15\/raj-hc-period-of-limitation-for-preferring-an-appeal-against-a-decision-of-family-court-is-90-days-s-28-of-hma-1955-to-override-the-family-courts-act\/","url_meta":{"origin":200433,"position":5},"title":"Raj HC | Period of limitation for preferring an appeal against a decision of Family Court is 90 days;\u00a0S. 28 of HMA, 1955, to override the Family Courts Act","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"November 15, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Rajasthan High Court: A Division Bench of \u00a0Mohammad Rafiq and \u00a0Narendra Singh Dhaddha, JJ. \u00a0while harmonizing the provisions contained under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 and Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, held that the period of limitation for preferring an appeal from a decision\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/200433","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/8808"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=200433"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/200433\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=200433"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=200433"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=200433"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}