Judgment

B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, J.

(1) LEAVE granted.

(2) THE appellant instituted Matrimonial Suit (No. 51 of 1987 on the file of the Tenth court of the Additional District Judge, Alipore) for declaring her marriage with the respondent a nullity on the ground that her consent in the marriage was obtained by fraud within the meaning of Section 25(iii) of the Special Marriage Act, 1954. Her case was accepted by the learned District Judge who declared the marriage void. On appeal, a division bench of the Calcutta High court took the view that the appellant has failed to establish the fraud alleged by her. The respondents appeal was accordingly allowed and the appellants suit dismissed.

(3) AT the time of marriage, the appellant was 19 years old. She was a student of B.A. Respondent is far older in age. According to the appellant, he was more than 40 years of age at the time of marriage though the respondent himself contends that he was only 32 years old at that time. He was teaching music to the appellants elder sister until she was married. He was known to the appellants family for over a decade. The appellant was taking music lessons at which the respondent was the Tabla-player. The school where the appellant took music lessons was being run at the residence of the respondent. The appellants case is that the respondent fraudulently represented to her that if she accompanies him to Calcutta he will arrange for an audition by the Officials of All India Radio to enable her to participate in a music competition, which will ultimately pave way for her to become an artiste with All India Radio. Accordingly, she accompanied him to Calcutta. There he took her to a ghar and took her signatures on certain blank forms, Since she had implicit faith in the respondent, she signed the forms without noticing the contents thereof. Several months later, i.e., on 2/3/1987, the respondent told her for the first time that she must come and live with him since they were married at Calcutta. The appellant says, this revelation came as a shock to her and she immediately informed her parents. On inquiry and on verification, they found out the particulars of marriage from the office of the Marriage Officer at Calcutta, and then instituted present suit.

(4) THE respondent denied any fraud or fraudulent misrepresentation in obtaining the consent of the appellant for the marriage. According to him he knew the appellant and her family for the last several years; he was visiting their house quite often. He admitted that he gave music lessons to appellants elder sister and also that he was acting as Tabla-player at the music lessons taken by the appellant in guitar. His case is that the appellant fell in love with him and it was at her instance that the marriage was registered at Calcutta. It is not, however, suggested by him that the parents of the appellant were opposed to the marriage nor could he give any particular reason why the marriage had to be registered at Calcutta and why none on the appellants side participated or witnessed the said marriage. No reason is also assigned why the marriage was not consummated for a period of about 8 months after the marriage. He could not also produce a single photograph of both the parties together, let alone photographs of the marriage. He produced certain witnesses in proof of marriage. Since the registration of marriage is admitted we need not refer to their evidence at any length, the only question being whether her signatures on the relevant forms were obtained by the respondent by making fraudulent misrepresentation. On this aspect, their evidence does not inspire much confidence. They are all persons connected in one way or the other with the music school run in the house of the respondent. None of them could suggest one reason why none from the side of theappellant was present. The appellant comes from a respectable family, Her father is a practising doctor of good repu