Sec.12 (2) Hindu Marriage Act - Discovery of fraud - Limitation - One Year - condoning & living continuously even after finding out the fraud - No Divorce = The marriage took place on 10.02.2005 and the O.P. was presented within one year from the date of marriage itself. It is only when the O.P. is not filed within one year from the date on which the fraud was discovered or the force ceased to operate, that can be treated as barred. There is another facet of Sub-Section 2. In case the petitioner in O.,P. filed under Section 12(1)(c), with his or her full consent lived with the other party to the marriage after the force, ceased, or the fraud has been discovered, the Court cannot entertain the O.P. In the instant case, even according to the respondent, the fact that the appellant is suffering from psoriasis came to her knowledge in May 2005. Even if her consent is said to have been obtained by fraud, she can maintain the O.P. if only she stopped living with him and filed the O.P. thereafter. The evidence discloses that she lived with the appellant till July, 2005. That disentitles the respondent to maintain the O.P. - 2015 A.P.(2014) MSKLAWREPORTS
Sec.12 (2) Hindu Marriage Act - Discovery of fraud - Limitation - One Year - condoning & living continuously even after finding out the fraud - No Divorce =
The marriage took place on 10.02.2005 and the O.P.
was presented within one year from the date of marriage itself.
It is only when
the O.P. is not filed within one year from the date on which the fraud was
discovered or the force ceased to operate, that can be treated as barred.
There is another facet of Sub-Section 2. In case the petitioner in O.,P. filed
under Section 12(1)(c), with his or her full consent lived with the other party
to the marriage after the force, ceased, or the fraud has been discovered, the
Court cannot entertain the O.P.
In the instant case, even according to the
respondent, the fact that the appellant is suffering from psoriasis came to her
knowledge in May 2005.
Even if her consent is said to have been obtained by
fraud, she can maintain the O.P. if only she stopped living with him and filed
the O.P. thereafter. The evidence discloses that she lived with the appellant
till July, 2005. That disentitles the respondent to maintain the O.P.
- 2015 A.P.(2014) MSKLAWREPORTS
The marriage took place on 10.02.2005 and the O.P.
was presented within one year from the date of marriage itself.
It is only when
the O.P. is not filed within one year from the date on which the fraud was
discovered or the force ceased to operate, that can be treated as barred.
There is another facet of Sub-Section 2. In case the petitioner in O.,P. filed
under Section 12(1)(c), with his or her full consent lived with the other party
to the marriage after the force, ceased, or the fraud has been discovered, the
Court cannot entertain the O.P.
In the instant case, even according to the
respondent, the fact that the appellant is suffering from psoriasis came to her
knowledge in May 2005.
Even if her consent is said to have been obtained by
fraud, she can maintain the O.P. if only she stopped living with him and filed
the O.P. thereafter. The evidence discloses that she lived with the appellant
till July, 2005. That disentitles the respondent to maintain the O.P.
- 2015 A.P.(2014) MSKLAWREPORTS