JUDGMENT - 1) The parties (petitioner Mahendra and respondent Sushila) were betrothed to each other in June or July 1945 and the marriage between the two took place on 10-3-1947 according to Hindu rites. After a few days of married life, the respondent went to her parents place at Prantij and stayed there till the third week of April 1947. During her stay at Prantij she informed her husband that she had conceived. The petitioner was to leave for the U. S. A. for business and the resondent returned to Bombay about the end of April, 1947, before the petitioner left for the U. S. A. On or about 27-8-1947, respondent gave birth to a female child and the petitioner learnt about this in London where he was at that time. According to the petitioner, he was shocked when he learnt the news about a child having been born to him 5 months 17 days after marriage and he suspected that the child had been conceived prior to marriage through someone else other than the petitioner. after his return to India in November 1947, he filed a suit for dissolution of marriage in the Shahar nyayadhish Court of the Baroda State on the ground that the marriage was brought about by fraud and that the respondent had concealed from him the fact of her pregnancy from someone else. This suit was resisted by the respondent who contended that the child was born as a result of conception after marriage. The suit was thrown out by the Court at Baroda on the preliminary ground that the petitioner was not domiciled in the Baroda State and, therefore, the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, came into force on 18-5-1955 and the petitioner filed the present petition on 18-4-1956 for decree for nullity of marriage under S. 12 of the Act on the ground

that respondent was at the time of marriage, pregnant by some person other than the petitioner. The respondent resisted the petition on the ground that she had submitted to the petitioners demand for sexual relations before the marriage and as a result of such sexual relations the respondent had conceived through the petitioner. The trial court gave the petitioner a decree for nullity of marriage. The respondent wife appealed.

Patel, J.

(His Lordship after narrating the facts, proceeded:) Section 12 of the Act so far as is material to the present case is as follows:

12. (1) "Any marriage solemnised, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, shall be voidable and may be annulled by a decree of nullity on any of the following grounds, namely, (d) that the respondent was at the time of the marriage pregnant by some person other than the petitioner.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-s (1) no petition for annulling a marriage (b) on the ground specified in clause (d) of sub-s. (1) shall be entertained unless the Court is satisfied,

(1) that the petitioner was at the time of the marriage ignorant of the facts alleged;

(iii) that the marital intercourse with consent of the petitioner has not taken place since the discovery by the petitioner of the existence of the grounds for a decree.

Section 23 so far as relevant provides:

23. (1) "In my proceeding under this Act, whether defended or not, if the court is satisfied that (a) any of the grounds for granting relief exists and the petitioner is not in any way taking advantage of his or her own wrong or disability for the purpose of such relief,

x x x x x

(c) the petition is not presented or prosecuted in collusion with the respondent and

(d) there has not been any unnecessary or improper delay in instituting the proceedings, and

(c) there is no other legal ground why relief should not be granted, then and in such a case, but not otherwise, the Court shall decree such relief accordingly."

The issues that would arise would be:

(1) Whether the respondent was pregnant at the date of marriage.

(2) If she was whether she was pregnant by some one other than the petitioner.

(3) Whether the petitioner was at the time of marriage ignorant of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document