The specific provision under Section 12(2)(b)(ii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which imposes a one-year limitation period for filing petitions for annulment of marriage on the ground of pregnancy of the wife at the time of marriage by a person other than the petitioner, cannot be overridden by the general provision under Section 23(1)(d) of the Act, which allows the court to grant relief even after the expiry of the limitation period if there has been no unnecessary or improper delay in instituting the proceedings.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is at the instance of the petitioner husband Pranab Biswas and arises out of the judgment and order of dismissal passed by the Third Court of the Additional District Judge, Howrah, on 31. 8. 71 in Mat. Suit No. 1 of 1970.

( 2 ) STATED in short the petitioner's case was that entered into a negotiated marriage with the respondent No. 1 on or about the 10th of Falgun 1372 B. S. , corresponding t the 22nd of February 1966. The marriage was solemnized according to the Hindu rites. Soon after the marriage the OPPOSITE PARTY respondent No. 1 as bride wet to the petitioner's house at Salkia and there she was found vomiting and ailing. On medical examination it was detected that she was pregnant at the time of marriage and had been carrying for about three or four months. The marriage had not been consummated between the parties and the petitioner got a rude shock on account of the unchastity of this spouse. The respondent wife was first removed to a friend's house where she having admitted that she was in love with respondent No. 2 Ranjit Kumar Sinha Roy and had conceived through him, she was taken to the house of her father at Naihati and was left there. The petitioner husband was surprised to find that a fraud had been practiced upon him by giving him in marriage a pregnant girl and so he wanted to avoid the marriage. In this behalf he consulted a lawyer and was advised to institute a suit after expiry of three years from the date of marriage for annulment of the marriage. Shortly before the proceedings were started some papers came to the hands of the petitioner husband through his friend who happened to be known to respondent no. 2 aforesaid, and from those letter the petitioner-appellant came to know that respondent No. 1 was living in adultery. That on account of adulterous life led by the respondent wife and regular offence committed by her, the petitioner-appellant found himself humiliated as the offence of adultery was committed deliberately and with intention to injure the feelings and susceptibilities of the petitioner husband. The petitioner appellant was also threatened by several unknown persons with assault and physical injury and the petitioner-appellant became afraid for his life and there arose reasonable apprehension in his mind that living with respondent No. 1 would be harmful to him.

( 3 ) ON the basis of aforesaid facts and pleading, the petitioner husband prayed for a decree annulling his marriage under S. 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 (hereinafter called the Act ). Alternatively he prayed for a decree of divorce under S. 13 of the Act and/or for a decree for judicial separation under S. 10 of the Act.

( 4 ) THE suit was contested by respondent No. 1 Mrinmayee Dasi alone. She admitted in her written statement that she was married to the petitioner-appellant on the 10th of Falgun 1372 B. S. according to the Hindu rites and after marriage she was taken to the house of her husband where she stayed for some time. The material allegations made against her in the petition filed by the husband were all denied. She contended that her husband was I love with some other girl and wanted to marry her by getting rid of the petitioner. She denied that she was pregnant at the time of her marriage and she also denied that she was in love with O. P. respondent No. 2 Ranjit Kumar Sinha Roy. She stated that she was desirous of making home with her husband and in the premises her petitioner husband was not entitled to the reliefs prayed for by him.

( 5 ) BEFORE the learned Additional District Judge letters marked exhibit I series purported to have been written by Mrinmayee Dasi to her lover Ranjit Kumar Sinha Roy or to her mother or to her husband or to some other person were produced in evidence. A number of witnesses were examined by either side and the learned Additional District Judge considered the matter and dismissed the suit.

( 6 ) MR. Chakravorti, the learned Advocate fo