Ravi Kant vs Bandana Kumari - 2023 Supreme(Pat) 841

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Pat) 841

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
P. B. BAJANTHRI and ARUN KUMAR JHA, JJ.
Miscellaneous Appeal No.248 of 2020
(10.11.2023)
Ravi Kant ... Appellant
vs.
Bandana Kumari ... Respondents

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant : M/s Jitendra Kishore Verma, Anjani Kumar, Ravi Roy, Shreyash Goyal, Abhay Nath, Shweta Raj.
For the Respondent: Mr. Shashank Shekhar.

Headnote:
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Sections 12(1)(c) and 7 read with Rule 6 of Hindu Marriage Rules, 1956 – Nullity of marriage – Forced marriage – Traditional Hindu form of marriage is not a valid marriage in absence of performance of 'saptapadi' and 'datta homa' – Petitioner was forced him to put Vermillion (Sindur) to forehead of respondent – It is specific contention of petitioner/appellant that his consent was obtained under force as he was threatened at gunpoint – It cannot be said that there was undue delay on part of petitioner in reporting misdeed against him – If it were a normal arrange marriage, naturally there would have been participation from both sides – Except for uncle of petitioner, no names of any other blood relation or relatives of petitioner has been brought on record by respondent, who might have attended marriage – Onus was on respondent to rebut contention of petitioner by showing that marriage was solemnized following all rites and rituals and it was a normal marriage – Written statement of respondent is silent on a number of points and denials are evasive – It has come in evidence of petitioner's side that marriage did not commence as there was no cohabitation since petitioner fled away in night of his marriage – Respondent has utterly failed to rebut contention that petitioner/appellant was not forced into marriage – Petitioner's witnesses have supported case of petitioner regarding marriage at gunpoint – Order of Family Court is not sustainable – Judgment passed in Matrimonial Case set aside and marriage of appellant-petitioner with respondent annulled – Misc. Appeal allowed. (Paras 29, 30, 31, 32, 37, 38 and 39)
Family Courts Act, 1984 – Sections 17 and 19 – Judgment of Family Court – Judgment of Family Court shall contain concise statement of case, point of determination, decision there on and reasons for such decisions – In present case, Family Court did not frame any issues at all and still it went to decide the case, however, parties adduced their evidence for and against contention raised in their pleadings – It can be presumed that parties were knowing about facts in issue and accordingly laid their evidence – Matrimonial Suit was filed way back in year 2013 and more than a decade has elapsed since then – It would be harsh on parties if they are relegated to trials and tribulations of Family Court again after passage of so much time. (Para 11)

Arun Kumar Jha, J. – Learned counsel for the parties have been heard on the previous date of hearing.

2. The instant Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the petitioner/appellant under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 against the judgment 27.01.2020 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Lakhisarai in Matrimonial Case No. 51 of 2013 dismissing the petition of the petitioner filed for decree of nullity of marriage under Section 12(1)(c) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 read with Rule 6 of Hindu Marriage Rules, 1956.

3. The case of the petitioner/appellant as it appears from the record, is that the petitioner/appellant is a Constable in communication coy Section ‘A’. On 30.06.2013, the petitioner along with his uncle had gone to Ashok Dham Temple in Lakhisarai for worship. When the petitioner and his uncle had been purchasing materials for worship at about 02:00 pm, three persons, namely, Rajesh Kumar, Deepak Kumar and Bipin Singh all of Village Chauki, P.O., Balgudar P.S. and District- Lakhisarai along with six unknown persons who were armed with pistol and knives came and surrounded the petitioner and his uncle. These persons brought the respondent near the petitioner and threatening him with life at gun point and dagger forced him to put vermillion (sindur) to the forehead of the respondent. On resistance being shown by the petitioner, he was assaulted with slaps and fists. The uncle of the petitioner was also surrounded and threatened by the aforesaid persons. Finding no way out as being in custody of the above noted persons, the petitioner put sindur on the head of the respondent but without any religious or spiritual rites and rituals. After performance of the so called marriage, the petitioner and respondent were kept confined in a dark room in the house of the above named Bipin Singh. The uncle of the petitioner was also threatened and confined to the house of Bipin Singh. After sunset, the uncle of the petitioner was set free and he was asked to come with his family members along with ornaments and clothes for respondent as the marriage has been performed. Thereafter, the uncle of the petitioner went to the Lakhisarai Police Station and informed the police about the incident at about 02:00 pm on 01.07.2013, but the police did not register the case. On the same night, the petitioner somehow managed to come out of the house of the respondent who is the daughter of above named Bipin Singh and went to inform the police about the incident but again the police did not take any action. Thereafter, the petitioner reached his village. Since the petitioner was required to join his duty immediately, he went to his service place and after getting leave, he came to file this case. Meanwhile, the uncle of the petitioner has also filed a criminal case in the Court of learned C.J.M., Lakhisarai vide Complaint Case No. 431C/12 under Section 323, 341, 352, 387 and 365 IPC. Thus the petitioner submitted that the so called marriage is in contravention of religious and customary laws and is voidable as the petitioner was forced to put sindur on the head of the respondent under threat and coercion. The petitioner has not performed any religious function out of his free will and consent and prayed the learned Family Court to annul the so called marriage while passing a decree of nullity.

4. The respondent appeared and filed her written statement. In her written statement, the respondent submitted that she is the wife of the petitioner and their marriage has been solemnized on 30.06.2013 under Hindu customs and at the time of marriage, the father of the respondent gave the petitioner gift of gold, Rs. 10,00,000 (Ten Lacs) and other material. The respondent went to her matrimonial home and after passage of some time, the petitioner demanded a Maruti Car and tortured the respondent. The respondent denied all the averments made by the petitioner in his petition contending that respective allegations are false and fabricated. T