Marriage of Vijaykumar CA1/1

Filed 5/15/25 Marriage of Vijaykumar CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

In re the Marriage of SHREYAS VIJAYKUMAR and RIPAL VIJAYKUMAR SHREYAS.

SHREYAS VIJAYKUMAR, A169422 Respondent, v. (San Mateo County Super. Ct. No. 21-FAM-01626) RIPAL VIJAYKUMAR SHREYAS, Appellant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 In this family law proceeding, Ripal Vijaykumar Shreyas (Ripal) appeals from the denial of her request for an annulment on grounds of fraud. Ripal married Shreyas Vijaykumar (Shreyas) on July 7, 2021. The two separated approximately one month later. In September 2021, Shreyas filed a petition for dissolution of the marriage. About five months after that, in February 2022, Ripal filed a response to the petition along with a request for annulment. That same month, Shreyas filed a request for order, seeking sole

We resolve this case by memorandum opinion under California 1

Standards of Judicial Administration section 8.1.

1

possession of the family home. Ripal objected to the request for order, and both Shreyas’ request for possession and Ripal’s request for annulment were set for hearing in August 2022. After hearing evidence, the superior court denied Ripal’s annulment request, and the parties agreed she would move out of the family home by November 1. The matter was continued for a status conference, and the parties were ordered to meet and confer regarding personal property. In July 2023, the parties filed a stipulation and waiver stating the matter was uncontested; they waived various rights, including the right to appeal; and they would be submitting an agreement to the court for approval. A stipulated judgment of dissolution was filed July 27, with notice of entry given that same day. Three months later, on October 30, 2023, the superior court filed findings and orders after hearing memorializing the rulings it had made the prior year, i.e., as to the Shreyas’ possession of the family home and Ripal’s request for annulment. Ripal filed a notice of appeal from the October 30 rulings on December 29, 2023. “[D]issolution of marriage and nullity of marriage are premised on inconsistent contradictory harms suffered: Based on grounds that arise after the marriage, a dissolution action is brought to terminate a valid marriage; based on grounds that arose prior to the alleged marriage, a nullity action is brought to determine whether a valid marriage ever existed.” (In re Marriage of Garcia (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 1334, 1348.) “Very simply, ‘a judgment of dissolution terminates a valid marriage,’ whereas ‘a judgment of nullity declares that the marriage was void from its inception.’ ” (Ibid.) “Thus, a judgment of nullity 'has been said to “relate back” and erase the marriage and all its implications from the outset.’ ” (In re Marriage of Seaton (2011)