The petition for annulment of marriage must be filed within one year from the discovery of force or fraud in obtaining the consent for the marriage.

Headnote:
Annulment of Marriage - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, sec. 12 (1) (c) and (2) - The court analyzed the provisions of sec. 12 (1) (c) and (2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, which allow for the annulment of a marriage if the consent was obtained by force or fraud. The court emphasized that the petition for annulment must be filed within one year from the discovery of force or fraud.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant filed a petition for annulment of her alleged marriage under sec. 12 (1) (c) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. She claimed that the respondent had obtained her consent through force and fraud. The appellant alleged that the respondent had sexually exploited and harassed her for several years, and had fabricated documents to support his claim of marriage. The Family Court dismissed the petition, stating that it was barred by limitation. The appellant appealed the decision.
Finding of the Court:
The Court analyzed the evidence presented by the appellant and found it to be improbable and unbelievable. The Court noted that there was no corroboration of the appellant's testimony and that her conduct, such as remaining silent about the alleged abuse and not disclosing it to anyone, was questionable. The Court also considered the legal provisions of sec. 12 (1) (c) and (2) of the Act, which require the petition for annulment to be filed within one year from the discovery of force or fraud. The Court concluded that the petition was barred by limitation.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the evidence presented by the appellant was insufficient to prove force or fraud in obtaining her consent for the alleged marriage. The Court also found that the petition was filed beyond the one-year limitation period prescribed by the Act. Therefore, the Court dismissed the appeal.
Result: The appeal was dismissed, and the decision of the Family Court was upheld.

JUDGMENT

PRITHVIRAJ K.CHAVAN,J. - Feeling aggrieved with and dissatisfied by the judgment and order dtd. 7/9/2021 passed by the Family Court, Mumbai dismissing Petition No. A - 2860 of 2017 filed for annulment of marriage under sec. 12 (1) (c) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, appellant-wife has filed this appeal.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, facts germane for disposal of this appeal can be summarized as follows. The case has chequered history.

3. Appellant and respondent are Hindus. Appellant is qualified as a Master of Science from Singhania University, Rajasthan. She is gainfully employed as an officer in Union Bank of India, Mumbai. Appellant is unaware of respondents age, educational qualification and employment details.

4. In the month of January-February, 2003, when appellant was aged about 14 to 15 years and prosecuting her studies in 10th standard, respondent had forcibly made physical contact with her and took obscene photographs. Respondent threatened her of dire consequences and also to her family members if she disclosed about the act of respondent and photographs. Respondent threatened her that if appellant utters even a single word about the incident to anyone, he would spoil her reputation by making obscene photographs viral on social media and on internet. Appellant silently suffered the ordeal as she belongs to a very orthodox family from the State of Haryana where custom of Khap Panchayat prevails.

5. Appellants father came to be transferred from Bilaspur to Chhachharauli and, thereafter, appellant was not in contact with respondent till 2006.

6. In 2007, when appellant was studying at Yamuna Nagar, respondent again started harassing her by stalking and reminding her of obscene photographs, inter alia, threatening her to make it viral and damage reputation of her family, if she does not submit to his demands.

7. Being afraid of respondents notorious nature, appellant was forced to submit herself to his whims and fancies till the year 2008. After her graduation, appellant went back to her native place at Narnaul to pursue higher education.

8. In 2010, when appellant returned to Yamuna Nagar, respondent started threatening her to marry and stay with him, else, he would disfigure her by throwing acid. He again threatened to defame appellant and her family. It is contended that respondent was so emboldened that he started physically assaulting, insulting and abusing appellant in public and, on one such occasion, in the year 2011, when appellant was working as a teacher at a Coaching Centre, respondent slapped her in front of her colleagues only because she declined to go out with him. Acts of respondent to threaten and torment appellant with dire consequences to her and her familys life, continued unabated.

9. It is averred that in the month of November, 2011, appellant joined Punjab National Bank and was working as a Single Window Operator (Clerk) at its branch situate in Village Dhanora. She was staying in PG accommodation in the same village. Taking undue advantage of her loneliness, respondent kept pressurizing her to get married to him.

10. Appellant has further quoted an incident alleged to have occurred on 28/12/2011 when respondent rang up her office number and asked her to come out of the branch. Upon her refusal, he threatened to crate a scene inside the branch office and spoil her reputation. When appellant came out, respondent snatched her cell phone and forcibly took her in his car. On the way, he gave her some prasad to eat, which appellant later on realized that it was spiked with some drugs, as after consuming said prasad, appellant became powerless and mute spectator to the events that unfolded thereafter. Appellant remembered that respondent picked up his friends on the way and later took her to a temple and clicked some photographs. Later, respondent and his friends made her sign some blank papers and only after she signed the blank papers, respondent dropped her at her office on the next da