Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Ameya Kulkarni, and the respondent, Isha Kulkarni, were married on 13.03.2023 as per Hindu rites. The marriage was not consummated, and the parties separated within 17 days. The respondent filed a petition before the Family Court, Ch. Sambhajinagar, seeking annulment of marriage under Section 12(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, on the ground of relative impotency. The appellant filed a written statement admitting that the marriage was not consummated. The respondent then filed an application under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC seeking judgment on admission. The Family Court refused the application, leading to the present appeal. The High Court held that the admission of non-consummation in the written statement is a clear admission of a fact that entitles the respondent to a decree of nullity. The court observed that the Family Court erred in not passing the decree and allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order and directing the Family Court to pass a decree of nullity in favor of the respondent.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure Code - Order 12 Rule 6 - Judgment on Admission - Admission of non-consummation of marriage in written statement - The Family Court refused to pass judgment on admission despite the appellant's clear admission that the marriage was not consummated. The High Court held that such admission entitles the petitioner to a decree of nullity under Section 12(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and the Family Court ought to have passed the decree. (Paras 1-10)
B) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Section 12(1)(a) - Nullity of Marriage - Non-consummation due to impotency - The respondent sought annulment on ground of relative impotency. The appellant admitted non-consummation. The court held that the admission itself is sufficient to grant decree of nullity, and the question of who is at fault is irrelevant for the purpose of Order 12 Rule 6 CPC. (Paras 2-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Family Court erred in refusing to pass a judgment on admission under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC when the appellant admitted that the marriage was not consummated, thereby entitling the respondent to a decree of nullity under Section 12(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 26.02.2024 passed by the Family Court, Ch. Sambhajinagar in Petition No. B-08 of 2023 below Exhibit-15 is set aside. The Family Court is directed to pass a decree of nullity in favor of the respondent under Section 12(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Law Points
- Order 12 Rule 6 CPC
- Section 12(1)(a) Hindu Marriage Act
- 1955
- Admission of non-consummation
- Decree of nullity
- Relative impotency
Case Details
2024 LawText (BOM) (04) 32
Family Court Appeal No.18 of 2024
Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi, S. G. Chapalgaonkar
Mr. Swapnil Joshi h/f M/s. J. P. Legal Associates for Appellant, Mr. Sanjeev Deshpande, Senior Advocate i/by Mr. M. D. Swami for Respondent
Isha w/o Ameya Kulkarni (Isha d/o Parag Mahajan)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Appeal against order of Family Court refusing to pass judgment on admission under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC in a petition for annulment of marriage under Section 12(1)(a) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Remedy Sought
The respondent (wife) sought a decree of nullity of marriage on the ground of non-consummation due to relative impotency of the appellant (husband).
Filing Reason
The marriage was not consummated and the parties separated within 17 days. The appellant admitted non-consummation in his written statement.
Previous Decisions
The Family Court, Ch. Sambhajinagar, by order dated 26.02.2024 in Petition No. B-08 of 2023, refused to pass judgment on admission under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC.
Issues
Whether the Family Court erred in refusing to pass judgment on admission under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC when the appellant admitted that the marriage was not consummated.
Whether the admission of non-consummation entitles the respondent to a decree of nullity under Section 12(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Submissions/Arguments
The respondent argued that the appellant's admission in the written statement that the marriage was not consummated is a clear admission of a fact that entitles her to a decree of nullity under Section 12(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
The appellant contended that the admission was not unequivocal and that the question of who was at fault needed to be decided at trial.
Ratio Decidendi
An admission of non-consummation of marriage in a written statement is a clear admission of a fact that entitles the petitioner to a decree of nullity under Section 12(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and the court ought to pass judgment on admission under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC without requiring trial on the issue of who is at fault.
Judgment Excerpts
The appellant admits that the marriage could not be consummated.
The respondent contends that the marriage could not be consummated due to some mental or physical disability of husband in the nature of ‘Relative Impotency’.
The Family Court ought to have passed the decree of nullity on the basis of admission.
Procedural History
The respondent filed Petition No. B-08 of 2023 before the Family Court, Ch. Sambhajinagar seeking annulment of marriage under Section 12(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The appellant filed a written statement admitting non-consummation. The respondent filed an application below Exhibit-15 for judgment on admission under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC. The Family Court refused the application by order dated 26.02.2024. The appellant filed the present appeal against that order.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC): Order 12 Rule 6
- Hindu Marriage Act, 1955: Section 12(1)(a)
