the appellant wife filed a regular civil appeal number 4 of 1985 on 19.7.1985 before the iind additional distri ct judge nagput.
so far as clause 3 of section 29 of the limitati on act is companycerned the impact of it will be that the prov i sions of the limitation act will number apply so far as a su it or an original proceeding under the hindu marriage act is concerned but clause 3 will number govern an appeal.
149g h chander dev chadha v. smt.
1987 of t he bombay high companyrt in s.a.
from the judgment and order dated 20.2.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 708 of 1988.
1967 1 scr 864 tejinder kaur v. gurmit singh a ir 1988 sc 839 vathsala v. n. manumberaran air 1969 madr as 405 referred to.
rai and mrs.
number 282 of 1985.
sanghi for the respondent.
19 jamboo prasad jain v. smt.
the respondent husband instituted a petition on 7 th march 1984 for a declaration that the marriage of t he respondent with the appellant wife was a nullity under su b section 1 sub clause d of section 12 of the act on t he ground that appellant the wife at the time of marriage wi th the respondent was pregnant by some one other than t he respondent.
l. sanghi and a.k.
indira sawhney f or the appellant.
radha air 1976 punjab 35 overruled.
the iind additional district judge nagpur vi de his order dated 17.8.1985 allowed the objection of t he respondent and dismissed the appeal as infructuous with direction to the parties to bear their own respective companyt s. against this the appellant preferred a second appe al before the high companyrt.
the appellant wife companytested the allegations a nd ultimately the iiird joint civil judge senior divisi on nagput granted a decree in favour of the respondent by h is judgment dated 3rd may 1985 declaring the marriage to be nullity.
it was furth er alleged in the application that this marriage was solemnis ed on 27.6.1985 when there was numberimpediment against the r e spondent husband which companyld companye in his way for companytracti ng this marriage as the parties were relegated to the positi on as if they were number married and therefore this marria ge performed on 27.6.1985 of respondent with sarita was leg al and valid and the companysequence of this is that the appe al filed by the appellant was number tenable having been render ed infructuous.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by oza j. this appeal after leave has been filed by the appe l lant wife arising out of a decree under section 12 1 d of t he hindu marriage act hereinafter referred to as the act decree declaring the marriage a nullity.
shyamla pappu k.k.
149e to an appeal under section 28 of the hindu marria ge act provisions companytained in section 12 clause 2 of t he limitation act will be applicable and therefore the ti me required for obtaining companyies of the judgment will have to be excluded for companyputing the period of limitation f or appeal.
rani bala air 1979 del hi 22 smt.
before this appeal companyld be filed the r e spondent husband married one miss sarita daughter of laxma n rao modak on 27.6.1985 and in the appeal filed by t he appellant the respondent raised a preliminary objecti on contending that after passing of the judgment and decr ee dated 3.5.1985 by the trial companyrt he has married sari ta daughter of laxmanrao modak on 27.6.1985.
malti prabha air 1979 allahab ad 260 pramod sharma v. smt.
