JAGDISH S/O LATE BUDHRAM v. ROOPA @ REENA D/O GHANSHYAM W/O JAGDISH
CMA/4261/2019 · 2026-02-02
Anil Kumar Upman, Sudesh Bansal
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 18543 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 18543 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
[2026:RJ-JP:4738-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 4261/2019 Jagdish S/o Late Budhram, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Ward No. 31, Near Gurudwara, Prem Nagar, Hanumangarh Town, District Hanumangarh, Rajasthan ----Appellant Versus Roopa @ Reena D/o Ghanshyam W/o Jagdish aged about 21 years, R/o Ward No. 31, Near Gurudwara, Prem Nagar, Hanumangarh Town, District Hanumangarh, Rajasthan Presently Residing Near Ganeshji Temple, Shivaji Nagar, Ward No. 29, Opposite Church, Madanganj-Kishangarh, District Ajmer (Raj) 9929460592 ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vinod Jhajharia For Respondent(s) : Mr. Aayush Agarwal HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Judgment 02/02/2026
1. Under challenge is judgment dated 20.05.2019 passed in civil misc. case No.178/2018 by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge No.1, Kishangarh, District Ajmer dismissing joint petition under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act. 2. Factual matrix of the case is not in dispute that marriage between parties was solemnized on 08.12.2016 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. Thereafter, on account of accrual of matrimonial discord, both submitted joint petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act on 31.10.2018. In the joint petition, facts were narrated that the petition does not suffer from any conspiracy and
[2026:RJ-JP:4738-DB] (2 of 2) [CMA-4261/2019] parties are living separately since three months. Both parties appeared before the Family Court and deposed their respective statements, declining to have any possibility of their reunion. 3. The Family Court dismissed the joint petition only on the ground that it is not established that parties have been living separately for a period of one year or more. 4. Counsel for both the parties, admit that now the period of more than one year of separation has completed and the pre- conditions envisaged under Section 13-B(1) & (2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, stand fulfilled, hence, on the joint request of both the parties, their marriage be ordered to be dissolved in terms of Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act. 5. We are of the opinion that appeal is continuation of the original proceedings and the conditions as envisaged under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act, stands fulfilled, hence with the consent of counsel for both the parties, the appeal stands allowed. 6. Impugned judgment is set aside. Marriage between the parties dated 8.12.2016 is hereby declared dissolved under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act. 7. Decree be framed accordingly. 8.
Record be sent back. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J (SUDESH BANSAL),J LALIT MOHAN /37