SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Pat) 657

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
P. B. BAJANTHRI and JITENDRA KUMAR, JJ.
Misc. Appeal No. 287 of 2019
(15.9.2023)
Sunny Devi ... Appellant
vs.
Ram Babu Kumar ... Respondent

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Shiva Shankar Sharma.
For the Respondent: Mr. Abhishek Kumar.

Headnote:

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Section 12(1) (d) – r/w Section 112 of Evidence Act, 1872 – Annulment of marriage on the ground that the respondent was at the time of marriage pregnant by some person other than the petitioner – the marriage may be annulled by a decree of nullity if the Respondent was pregnant at the time of the marriage by some person other than the petitioner – three conditions are however to be satisfied which are mentioned in sub-clause (i) to (iii) of clause(b) of sub-sec. (2) of section on 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act – those conditioins are : (i) that the petitioner was at the time of marriage ignorant of the facts alleged, (ii) that the proceedings have been instituted in the case of marriage solemnized before the commencement of the Act within one year of such commencement and in the case of marriage solemnized after the commencement of the Act within one year from the date of the marriage – thus, a period of limitation is fixed for filing an application under this clause, (iii) that martial intercourse with the consent of the petitioner has not taken place since the discovery by the petitioner for the existence of the said ground – in the persent case, the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 19.04.2012 and the wife joined the respondent husband at his matrimonial home the next day i.e., 20.04.2012 and female child is born on 22.01.2013 – as such, the child was born with 278 days of the wife joining the husband at his matrimonial home – general gestation period of child is 280 days which is enshrined in section 112 of the Evidence Act also – this 280 days is upper limit of the gestation period and not the lower limit – the child may be born few days prior to 280 days – as such, it goes without saying that the child born within 278 days has been conceived or or after 20.04.2012 when the Appellant – Wife joined the Respondent – husband at his matrimonial home after the marriage – hence, it is conclusively proved that the Respondent has fathered the child – the appellant was not carrying pregnancy since prior to the marriage – in such situation, onus is on the husband to show that he had no access – here access does not necessarily mean actual cohabitation – it only amounts opportunity of cohabitation – here, the appellant-wife stayed with him for 49 days and there is no pleading of impotency, serious illness or impossibility of cohabitation with the appellant and in such situation, Respondent – husband cannot be permitted to rebut the conclusive proof – no DNA test done in the present case – impugned judgement is not sustainable husband not entitled to get the marriage with the Appellant – wife declared void – Appeal allowed. (Paras 23, 24, 44, 45, 47 & 50)

1975 (2) SCC 326, AIR 1988 SC 121, 2005 (2) SCC 22, 2013 (SCC) only Ker 24493, 2023 SCC Online SC 161, 2010 (2) MWN (Civil) 337, (2009) 12 SCC 454, (2001) 12 SCC311, (1993) 3 SCC 418, (1987) 1 SCC 624, 1981 MP Series 585 AIR 1965 SC 364 – Referred.

Jitendra Kumar, J. – The present appeal has been filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 impugning the judgment dated 18.04.2019, passed by Ld. Principal Judge, Family Court, East Champaran, Motihari in Matrimonial (Divorce) Case No. 250 of 2012, whereby the petition, filed by the Plaintiff-Respondent under Section 12(d) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 praying for decree of nullity for annulment of marriage between the parties, has been allowed on contest.

2. The case of the Plaintiff-Respondent, as per the petition filed before the Family Court, is that marriage between the parties was solemnized on 19.04.2012 at the Village Malahi Bazar situated in the District East Champaran as per Hindu rites and customs. The parties had last resided together at Sunarpur located in the local jurisdiction of the Family Court, East Champaran, Motihari. It is also averred that there is no petition filed by the Plaintiff-Respondent prior to the present petition and there was no collusion between the parties to present the matrimonial petition. It is further averred that following the marriage, the Defendant-Appellant joined his matrimonial house. It is further averred that soon the Defendant-Appellant began to misbehave with the Plaintiff- Respondent and disliked his company and also refused cohabitation with him. It is further averred that on 30.04.2012, the Plaintiff-Respondent had seen various symptoms of Defendant-Appellant being pregnant. The Defendant- Appellant tried to live lonely with an intent to suppress the sign of pregnancy. It is further averred that the Plaintiff- Respondent, having seen abnormality of physique and behaviour of the Defendant-Appellant, got pregnancy test of the Defendant-Appellant conducted, which was found positive. It is further averred that the Defendant-Appellant herself confessed her guilt and admitted illicit relationship with other person prior to the marriage. It is further averred that on complaint on 07.06.2012, the father and brother of the Defendant-Appellant came Singhiya Hiwan and asked the Plaintiff-Respondent that his suspicion is wrong and they advised him to get the ultrasound test of the Defendant- Appellant conducted. As per advice, ultrasound test of Defendant-Appellant was conducted on 08.06.2012 at HI Tec Scan Centre Janpul Chowk, Motihari and the report of the ultrasound revealed that the age of fetus is eight weeks, meaning thereby that the child was conceived prior to the date of marriage, in spite of the fact that the petitioner never met the respondent before the marriage. It is further averred that after ultrasound report, the brother and father of the Defendant-Appellant took her with them to their home and this time, the Defendant-Appellant took away all her ornaments and other belongings along with herself. Hence, he claims that marriage is voidable and fit to be annulled on the ground of pregnancy since prior to the marriage with a person other than the Plaintiff-Respondent-husband. Hence, the Plaintiff- Respondent prayed for decree of nullity for annulling the marriage between the parties.

3. On notice, the Defendant-Appellant appeared before the Family Court and filed her written statement wherein she has denied all the allegations made against her and she has claimed that just next day of the marriage there was physical relationship between the parties, leading to her pregnancy. She has further averred that marriage was solemnized on 19.04.2012 and a female child was born on 22.01.2013, which clearly shows that allegation against the Defendant-Appellant is false. She has further deposed that the child was born in Referal Hospital, Areraj. She has further averred that after ousting by Plaintiff-Respondent, she was living at her Mayake. She has further claimed that on account of his illicit relationship with Sunit Devi, who is the wife of his brother Sugrim Prasad, this baseless allegation has been levelled against her. She has also claimed that after the ultrasound

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top