Actor Prasanth Gallery
The tumultuous 43-month-old marriage of actor Prasanth with D Grahalakshmi came to an end on Thursday, with a family court here annulling their marriage.
Declaring the wedding which tokk place on September 1, 2005 as null and void, the principal judge for family courts, P Ramalingam, said the actor’s consent for the marriage was obtained by fraud, as Grahalakshmi had suppressed the fact that she was already married
to man named Narayan Venuprasad.
The judge, however, left the couple’s three-year-old son in the care of Grahalakshmi though the actor had demanded its custody. He also declined to order the divorce on the ground of cruelty by Grahalakshmi.
Arriving at the court minutes after the verdict was delivered, Prasanth told reporters that he had to shuttle between court and home for more than three years. “But I never lost hope. I had full faith in the judiciary and now my stand has been vindicated. I humbly accept the verdict.”
According to the film star, within 90 days of their marriage, Grahalakshmi went back to her maternal house and did not even inform him about her pregnancy. He claimed that he came to know about their son’s birth on July 31, 2006 only through media. Prasanth initially filed a petition in the family court seeking restitution of conjugal rights.
However, later, when Grahalakshmi’s alleged first marriage with Narayan Venuprasad in 1998 came to light, Prasanth withdrew that petition and instituted a new case for declaring the marriage null and void. Venuprasad too has filed a separate divorce petition and it is pending in the same court.
After prolonged trial, the family court delivered its verdict on Thursday ruling that Prasanth indeed was duped into the marriage and hence it could not be sustained.
While Prasanth has not raised visiting rights to the child during the proceedings, Grahalakshmi, on her part, has not so far demanded maintenance for her son. Jurists said that she cannot seek maintenance from Prasanth, unless the present order of annulment is reversed by an appellant forum. While a divorcee is entitled to seek maintenance, such a right is not available to Grahalakshmi as the marriage itself had been declared null and void. The couple’s son, however, has every right to demand and inherit a share of properties in the name of Prasanth. Source: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com
The tumultuous 43-month-old marriage of actor Prasanth with D Grahalakshmi came to an end on Thursday, with a family court here annulling their marriage.
Declaring the wedding which tokk place on September 1, 2005 as null and void, the principal judge for family courts, P Ramalingam, said the actor’s consent for the marriage was obtained by fraud, as Grahalakshmi had suppressed the fact that she was already married
to man named Narayan Venuprasad.
The judge, however, left the couple’s three-year-old son in the care of Grahalakshmi though the actor had demanded its custody. He also declined to order the divorce on the ground of cruelty by Grahalakshmi.
Arriving at the court minutes after the verdict was delivered, Prasanth told reporters that he had to shuttle between court and home for more than three years. “But I never lost hope. I had full faith in the judiciary and now my stand has been vindicated. I humbly accept the verdict.”
According to the film star, within 90 days of their marriage, Grahalakshmi went back to her maternal house and did not even inform him about her pregnancy. He claimed that he came to know about their son’s birth on July 31, 2006 only through media. Prasanth initially filed a petition in the family court seeking restitution of conjugal rights.
However, later, when Grahalakshmi’s alleged first marriage with Narayan Venuprasad in 1998 came to light, Prasanth withdrew that petition and instituted a new case for declaring the marriage null and void. Venuprasad too has filed a separate divorce petition and it is pending in the same court.
After prolonged trial, the family court delivered its verdict on Thursday ruling that Prasanth indeed was duped into the marriage and hence it could not be sustained.
While Prasanth has not raised visiting rights to the child during the proceedings, Grahalakshmi, on her part, has not so far demanded maintenance for her son. Jurists said that she cannot seek maintenance from Prasanth, unless the present order of annulment is reversed by an appellant forum. While a divorcee is entitled to seek maintenance, such a right is not available to Grahalakshmi as the marriage itself had been declared null and void. The couple’s son, however, has every right to demand and inherit a share of properties in the name of Prasanth. Source: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com
No comments:
Post a Comment