Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
  • Mr. V.N Krishna Rao for Petr.
  • Mr. S. Ramalingam for Respt.
Judges
  • Alagiriswami, J.
Acts
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
  • Mr. V.N Krishna Rao for Petr.
  • Mr. S. Ramalingam for Respt.
Judges
  • Alagiriswami, J.
Acts
See more information ...
Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

This petition seeks revision of an order by the learned Subordinate Judge of Thanjavur in I.A. 11 of 1966 in O.P. 6 of 1966. The original petition (O.P. 6 of 1966) was filed by the respondent for annulment of his marriage with the petitioner. Alongside the original petition, an interlocutory application was filed seeking condonation of a delay of one year, six months, and twenty-four days in presenting the annulment petition. The parties were married on 18-6-1963. The petitioner gave birth to a child on 26-2-1964, whom the petitioner disowned by notifying the Municipal authorities on 8-3-1964. The respondent thereafter filed the annulment petition on 5-1-1966. The petitioner objected, arguing that the Court lacked jurisdiction to condone the delay and that the conditions in Section 12(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act were mandatory for entertaining a petition under Clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 12.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether the Court has jurisdiction to condone the delay in presenting a petition for annulment of marriage under Clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
  2. Whether the conditions laid down in Section 12(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act are mandatory conditions precedent for entertaining a petition for annulment of marriage.
  3. Whether the delay in filing the petition can be excused on grounds such as bona fide mistake or hardship, given the statutory framework.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner’s Arguments

  • The Court had no jurisdiction to condone the delay in filing the annulment petition.
  • The conditions prescribed in Section 12(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act are mandatory and must be strictly complied with before a petition under Clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 12 can be entertained.

Respondent’s Arguments

  • The petition for excusing the delay was bona fide.
  • The petitioner had not filed the petition under Section 12 on a bona fide mistake of fact.
  • Strict application of limitation law in matrimonial cases would be difficult, and excusing delay would not cause injustice.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent Rule or Principle Cited For Application by the Court
Chenchurammana v. Arunachalam, ILR 58 Mad 794 : AIR 1935 Mad 857 (Full Bench) Period fixed in Section 9(1)(c) of the Provincial Insolvency Act is not a limitation period but a condition precedent to adjudication. The Court analogized this principle to Section 12(2)(b)(ii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, holding that the time limit is a condition precedent, not a limitation period.
Savlaram Kacharoo v. Yeshodabai, 64 Bom LR 27 : AIR 1962 Bom 190 Compliance with Section 12(2)(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act is a condition precedent; petitions filed beyond the prescribed period cannot be saved by Section 10 of the General Clauses Act. The Court followed this view, holding that the learned Subordinate Judge lacked jurisdiction to condone delay beyond the time prescribed.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court analyzed the provisions of Section 12(2)(b)(ii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, which prescribes that no petition for annulment on the ground specified in Clause (d) of sub-section (1) shall be entertained unless instituted within one year from the date of marriage for marriages solemnised after the commencement of the Act. The Court emphasized that this requirement is a condition precedent to entertaining the petition, not merely a limitation period subject to condonation.

The Court distinguished the concept of limitation under the Limitation Act, noting that Section 29(3) of the Limitation Act excludes its application to matrimonial proceedings. The Court relied on the analogy with Section 9(1)(c) of the Provincial Insolvency Act, where the time limit is treated as a condition precedent rather than a limitation period.

Furthermore, the Court referred to authoritative precedents, including a Full Bench decision in Chenchurammana v. Arunachalam and the Bombay High Court decision in Savlaram Kacharoo v. Yeshodabai, which held that compliance with the time condition in Section 12(2)(b) is mandatory and cannot be bypassed by general clauses permitting extension or condonation.

Accordingly, the Court concluded that the learned Subordinate Judge had no jurisdiction to condone the delay in filing the petition, and the interlocutory application allowing the delay was not maintainable.

Holding and Implications

The civil revision petition is allowed, and the interlocutory application for condonation of delay (I.A. 11 of 1966) is dismissed.

The Court’s decision directly affects the parties by invalidating the condonation of delay and thereby barring the annulment petition filed beyond the prescribed period under Section 12(2)(b)(ii) of the Hindu Marriage Act. This ruling reinforces the mandatory nature of the statutory time conditions and clarifies that such conditions are not subject to extension or condonation under general limitation principles. No new precedent beyond the application of existing authority was established.

Show full summary ...

    Vellinayagi v. T. Subramaniam.

    Judgement

    This is a petition to revise the order of the learned Subordinate Judge of Thanjavur in I. A. 11 of 1966 in O. P. 6 of 1966. O. P. 6 of 1966 was filed by the present respondent for annulment of his marriage with the petitioner. Along with the original petition No. 6 of 1966, he filed the interlocutory application out of which this civil revision petition arises for condonation of the delay of one year, six months and twenty four days in presenting the petition. The parties were married on 18-6-1963. The petitioner gave birth to a child on 26-2-1964. The petitioner intimated to the Municipal authorities on 8-3-1964 disowning the said child. Thereafter he filed the petition for annulment of marriage on 5-1-1966. On behalf of the petitioner (herein) objection was taken that the Court had no jurisdiction to condone the delay in the presentation of the petition for annulment of the marriage and that the conditions laid down in Sec. 12 (2) of the Hindu Marriage Act were conditions subject to which alone an application for annulment of a marriage under Cl. (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 12 could be maintained.

    The learned Judge thought that the question for decision in the case was whether the petition for excusing the delay was a bona fide one and whether the petitioner had not filed the petition under Section 12 on a bona fide mistake of fact. He also thought that in a matrimonial case it would be very difficult to apply strictly the law of limitation because when the Hindu Marriage Act alone provides for dissolution of the marital tie on the ground of the wife being proved to have been conceived on the date of the marriage by a person other than the petitioner it would not be possible for the husband to obtain the relief under any other law and that by excusing the delay no injustice would be caused. I am afraid question of bona fide mistake of fact does not arise in this case. We are not now concerned with the question whether the requirements of sub-Cls. (i) and (iii) of Cl. (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 12 are satisfied. We are only concerned with the question whether the requirements of S. 12 (2) (b) (ii) have been satisfied. Sub-clause (ii) of Cl. (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 12 is as follows -

    "Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) no petition for annulling a marriage -

    (a)..................

    (b) on the ground specified in Cl. (d) of sub-section (1) shall be entertained unless the Court is satisfied -

    (i)...............(ii) that proceedings have been instituted in the case of a marriage solemnised before the commencement of this Act within the year of such commencement and in the case of marriages solemnised after such commencement within one year from the date of the marriage; and (iii)..............."

    What is laid down in sub-cl. (ii) is a condition subject to which alone a petition for annulling a marriage could be entertained. It is not a period of limitation. Section 5 of the Limitation Act cannot apply to this case, because Section 29 (3) of the Limitation Act of 1963 provides -

    "Save as otherwise provided in any law for the time being in force with respect to marriage and divorce, nothing in this Act shall apply to any suit or other proceeding under any such law."

    2. The wording of Section 12 (2) of Hindu Marriage Act is more or less similar to the wording of Section 9 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, which is as follows -

    "9(1) A creditor shall not be entitled to present an insolvency petition against a debtor unless...............(c) the act of insolvency on which the petition is grounded has occurred within three months before the presentation of the petition."

    A Full Bench of our Court in the decision reported in Chenchurammana v. Arunachalam, ILR 58 Mad 794 : (AIR 1935 Mad 857) (FB), has laid down that the period of three months fixed in Section 9 (1) (c) of the Provincial Insolvency Act is not a period of limitation but is a condition to an adjudication and accordingly an act of insolvency, which has occurred more than three months prior to the presentation of the petition, is not available as a ground of adjudication. I may also point out that a Bench of the Bombay High Court in Savlaram Kacharoo v. Yeshodabai, 64 Bom LR 27 : (AIR 1962 Bom 190) has taken the view that -

    "Compliance with Section 12 (2) (b) of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955, is a condition precedent to the entertainment of a petition under Section 12 (1) (d) of the Act, and therefore, a petition filed beyond the period mentioned in Section 12 (2) (b) (ii) of the Act cannot be saved by reason of the provisions of Section 10 of the General Clauses Act, 1897."

    With respect I follow the decision of the Bench. It follows, therefore, that the learned Subordinate Judge had no jurisdiction to allow I. A. 11 of 1966 and condone the delay. The civil revision petition is allowed. I. A. 11 of 1966 will as a consequence stand dismissed. No order as to costs.

    Revision allowed.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.
    Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

    Comments

    Vellinayagi v. T. Subramaniam.
    (Jun 18, 1968)