High Court of Gujarat
HINAL NITINKUMAR GOHILversusKASHYAP PRAVINKUMAR PITHADIA
- Disposal
- PARTLY ALLOWED @ ADMISSION STAGE
Holding
The High Court held that the Family Court’s direction to lodge a police complaint was not legally sustainable and set it aside, permitting the parties to approach the Family Court for a mutual‑consent divorce.
Summary
The wife appealed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 against a Family Court judgment that dismissed her petition for annulment of marriage on the ground that the Hindu marriage ceremony of ‘Saptapadi’ was not performed, and directed a police complaint for alleged false statements. The High Court examined whether the Family Court had jurisdiction to issue such a direction under Sections 196 and 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code and whether the marriage could be declared voidable under Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. It held that the direction to lodge a complaint was not sustainable as the alleged false statements did not amount to an offence under the relevant provisions. The Court also allowed the parties to file a mutual‑consent divorce petition under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, remanding the matter back to the Family Court. Consequently, the appeal was partly allowed and the direction to lodge a police complaint was set aside.
Issues considered
- Whether the Family Court had jurisdiction to direct the lodging of a police complaint under Sections 196 and 340 of the Cr.P.C. for alleged false statements.
- Whether the marriage is voidable on the ground of non‑performance of the customary ‘Saptapadi’ ceremony under Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
- Whether the parties may pursue a mutual‑consent divorce under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act despite the pending annulment petition.
- Whether the direction to lodge a complaint falls within the ambit of Section 379 of the BNSS (old Section 340 of the Cr.P.C.).
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 196, s. 340
- Family Courts Act, 1984s. 19
- Hindu Marriage Act, 1955s. 13B, s. 7
Subjects
annulmentvoidable marriageSaptapadiHindu Marriage ActFamily Courts Actmutual consent divorcejurisdictionCriminal Procedure Codedirection to lodge complaint
Judgment
C/FA/4148/2025 ORDER DATED: 18/06/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4148 of 2025
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4148 of 2025
==========================================================
HINAL NITINKUMAR GOHIL
Versus
KASHYAP PRAVINKUMAR PITHADIA
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR ADITYA PANDYA WITH DEVANGI B SOLANKI(8888) for the Appellant
MR. BHAUMIK DHOLARIYA(7009) for the Defendant
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI
Date : 18/06/2026
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA)
1. This appeal, under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 by
the wife – original petitioner, is against the judgment and decree
dated 11.11.2025, passed by the learned Judge, Family Court,
Vadodara in Family Suit No.914 of 2024. It was prayed that, the
marriage solemnized required to be annulled on the ground that
the marriage was not valid marriage, as it was not performed in
accordance with the customary rituals and ceremonies of either
parties, as mandated under Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act,
1955. The respondent husband admitted the pleadings and also
supported the claim of the appellant for annulment of the
marriage on the ground of valid marriage.
Page 1 of 4
C/FA/4148/2025 ORDER DATED: 18/06/2026
2. In nutshell, the declaration to the effect was sought that the
marriage is voidable, as no ‘Saptapadi’ was performed. The
Family Court after examining the marriage certificate and other
documents felt that the parties have stated false and misleading
facts about the non-performance of customary rituals and
ceremonies and on this count, the petition came to be dismissed
and while dismissing the petition, it was directed to register the
official complaint against the appellant and respondent with the
jurisdictional police station at Vadodara.
3. Aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid impugned
judgment and decree, the appellant has preferred the present
appeal.
4. We have heard learned counsel Mr. Aditya Pandya with Ms.
Devangi Solanki and Mr. Bhaumik Dholariya for the respective
parties.
5. It is submitted that the respondent husband is permanent resident
of U.K. and after registration of the marriage, he left the India. In
order to get the VISA etc., the marriage was registered on paper
and parties never lived together. The parties were unaware about
the form filled up for registration by the concerned and therefore,
they were not aware about the contents of the form. In fact, no
ceremony of ‘Saptapadi’ was taken place. In such circumstances,
referring to Sections 196 and 340 of the Cr.P.C., it is submitted
that, the Family Court has exceeded its jurisdiction while
Page 2 of 4
C/FA/4148/2025 ORDER DATED: 18/06/2026
directing to lodge a complaint with regard to submission of false
and misleading facts. The another ground raised is that, both the
parties have decided to file a petition for divorce for mutual
consent under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and
therefore, it is prayed that the direction for lodging the complaint
may be set aside and parties are permitted to file a consent
petition before the Family Court, Vadodara.
6. In the facts of the present case, the respondent husband is the
resident of U.K., London and for the marriage purpose, he came
to India at Vadodara. In such circumstances, there is no reason
for them to suppress or mislead the family Court about the
necessary ceremonies which we are not performed by the parties.
Thus, in our opinion, with a view to registration of the marriage,
the necessary columns being filled up. Thus, it cannot be said
that, in order to get favourable order, the false statement being
made before the Family Court. It is relevant to note that, the
Family Court has not acted upon the facts disclosed by the
parties. Thus, in our opinion, case would not fall under Section
379 of the BNSS (Old Section 340 of Cr.P.C) and therefore,
direction to lodge complaint against the appellants and
respondents is not sustainable in eye of law and is hereby set
aside.
7. Having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the
present case, the parties are re-relegated to the Family Court,
Page 3 of 4
C/FA/4148/2025 ORDER DATED: 18/06/2026
Vadodara and are permitted to file a consent Divorce petition
under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act. The Family Court
without being influenced by the observations made in the
judgment by the Family Court, more particularly paras 6.2, 6.3,
6.4, 6.5 and 6.6 and decide the same in accordance with law.
8. With the aforesaid observation, the appeal is partly allowed.
Order in Civil Application :
9. In view of the order passed in First Appeal, no order in Civil
Application and is disposed of accordingly.
(ILESH J. VORA,J)
(R. T. VACHHANI, J)
P.S. JOSHI
Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judges.
Digitally signed by: PALLAV SUBHASHCHANDRA JOSHI(HC00177), Principal Pvt. Secretary, at High Court of Gujarat on 19/06/2026 12:37:04
Page 4 of 4
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "annulment"Sign in to search