JUDGMENT

K.G. Balakrishnan, J.-Leave granted.

These two appeals arise out of the Judgments passed by the Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh. The appellant herein filed an application under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act for annulment of his marriage with the respondent, Harjit Kaur. This application was rejected by the Trial Court and the order was confirmed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed a Letters Patent Appeal before the Division Bench and the same dismissed. Civil Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 493 of 2002 is filed against that Judgment.

2. The appellant had also filed an application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for divorce on two grounds, viz., that the respondent deserted him and that she had committed cruelty against him. The Trial Court held that the respondent was responsible for causing cruelty to the appellant and hence the appellant was held entitled to get divorce; however, the plea of desertion was rejected. Aggrieved by the same, both the appellant and the respondent filed separate appeals and by a common Judgment, the learned Single Judge allowed the appeal preferred by the respondent and dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant herein. Thus, the learned Single Judge held that the appellant failed to prove that there was either desertion or cruelty on the part of the respondent. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant preferred an LPA before the Division Bench and by Judgment dated 19th July, 2001, the High Court dismissed the LPA filed by the appellant. Aggrieved by the same, Civil Appeals arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 501-502 of 2002 have been filed.

3. We heard the appellant who appeared in person and also the learned Counsel for the respondent. We explored the possibility of settlement and granted time to both the sides to have a settlement between the parties. As the appellant was working as a Doctor in Germany, we granted short adjournment so that the matter may be settled amicably, but the parties could not come to any settlement. The appellant submitted that both the Judgments are erroneous and, therefore, the appeals ought to be allowed.

4. We shall first take up the matter relating to annulment of marriage sought for by the appellant. The marriage between the appellant and the respondent took place on 28.1.1990 and the same was registered on 30.1.1990. According to the appellant, after the marriage, the appellant went to Germany in February 1990 where he had been working as a Doctor since past several years. The respondent joined the appellant in Germany in March 1990. She spent some months there and came back to India in June 1990 and returned to Germany in September 1990. According to the appellant, about 3 to 4 months thereafter, the respondent showed her true colours and tried to pick up quarrel with the appellant. It was alleged that the respondent wanted to grab money from the appellant. In July 1991, the mother of the respondent had also come to Germany and started staying with the appellant. A son was born to the couple on 14.7.1991. The appellant alleged that in February 1992, respondent along with her child left Germany without the knowledge and consent of the appellant. The appellant came to know that she had been staying with her parents in India and his efforts to bring her back failed. By October 1992, the appellant came to know that the respondent at the time of her marriage was a divorcee, and she had earlier married one Sanjit Singh of Meerut. The appellant made inquiries through his relatives and got confirmation of this fact. According to the appellant, the respondent had suppressed this fact and the appellant was under the impression that she was an unmarried woman and, therefore, the respondent and her family members committed fraud and misrepresentation and on these grounds, the appellant sought annulment of the marriage.

5. Th