Back
2000 Supreme(Cal) 385
High Court of Calcutta
S.B. Sinha & H. Banerji, JJ.
Smt. Sunita Gupta
Vs.
Sanjeeb Nandan
F.A.T. No. 1303 of 1999
Decided on : 4th August, 2000
M.M. Mallik for the appellant
Consent obtained by coercion, fraud, or misrepresentation renders a marriage voidable.
Headnote:
FAMILY LAW - NULLITY OF MARRIAGE - MARRIAGE SOLEMNIZED UNDER SPECIAL MARRIAGE ACT, 1954 - CONSENT OBTAINED BY COERCION, FRAUD OR MISREPRESENTATION - VALIDITY OF MARRIAGE - INTERPRETATION OF SECTIONS 4, 5 AND 12 OF THE SPECIAL MARRIAGE ACT, 1954.
Fact of the Case:
Appellant, a female, filed a suit seeking a declaration of nullity of her marriage with the respondent, solemnized under the Special Marriage Act, 1954. She alleged that the marriage was a result of coercion, fraud, and misrepresentation by the respondent, who had falsely represented himself as a wealthy businessman and had taken undue advantage of her position as his student.
Finding of the Court:
The Family Court erred in its analysis of evidence and failed to consider the appellant's explanation regarding the documentary evidence. The court should have considered the character of the respondent, the attending circumstances, and the conduct of the parties both prior to and after the alleged marriage.
Issues: 1. Whether the marriage between the appellant and the respondent was valid, considering the allegations of coercion, fraud, and misrepresentation. 2. Whether the Family Court correctly assessed the evidence and applied the relevant provisions of the Special Marriage Act, 1954.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. A marriage must be solemnized upon consent. If consent is obtained by coercion, fraud, or misrepresentation, the contract is voidable. 2. Admission of signature coupled with explanations regarding the circumstances leading to the signing of a document without knowing its contents cannot be considered knowledge of execution of the document. 3. In cases involving the validity of a marriage, the court should consider the conduct of the parties, the attending circumstances, and the character of the respondent. 4. Knowledge is a sine qua non for grant of consent.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the marriage between the appellant and the respondent was declared null and void.
S.B. Sinha, J.
Family Courts constituted under the Family Courts Act, 1980 have solemn duties to perform. A Family Court Judge holds greater responsibilities as he does not get the assistance of the learned lawyers. Hapless women approach the Family Courts for ventilating their grievances. Not only the Family Courts are obliged to take the assistance of the Family Counselors but they have a duty which is statutory in nature to guide the litigating parties and to help them to arrive at a settlement, if possible.
2. The case at hand depicts how perfunctorily a case is conducted by a Family Court.
3. The appellant herein, inter alia, filed the suit against the respondent for a decree declaring their marriage to be nullity. The said marriage allegedly was solemnised before the Marriage Registrar on 4.11.1996. Before the marriage, the relationship of the parties was teacher/tutor and pupil. The appellant had failed in the Madhyamik Examination held in March, 1997. The respondent was appointed as her tutor from September, 1996. Allegedly before the purported marriage the respondent represented to the appellant that he was owner of a Turmeric Factory which is a profitable concern. It was alleged:
"That on 4.11.1996 when the petitioner went to a neighbouring stationery shop for purchase of Khatas all on a sudden the respondent appeared there in a taxi alongwith three other associates of whom two happened to be ladies and at the bidding of the respondent the petitioner had to board the taxi on his representation that the petitioner would be required to be personally present at the Board Office for verification of the form already submitted and instead of taking the petitioner to Board Office the respondent took straight to the marriage registrar under the Special Marriage Act and forced the petitioner to put her signature on certain forms which the petitioner did without having understood the content and purport of the form and thereupon the respondent took the petitioner in a taxi to her residence and left her there with threats of murder of her parents in the event of disclosure of the incident to them and the petitioner accordingly did not didulge the same to her parents."
4. She allegedly was hyptonised by the words of the respondent to such an extent that she was not aware of her purported marriage and the respondent taking undue advantage of such situation forcibly took her to a relation's residence. According to the appellant, the respondent is of criminal character. Forcibly she was again taken to his own house on 14.12.1996.
5. A First Information Report was lodged by her father. The respondent allegedly forced her to write some letters to her parents. She was ultimately rescued from Bhadreswar.
6. The respondent in his written statement denied the said allegations and contended that they were in love with each other and married voluntarily.
7. Before the learned trial Judge the appellant examined herself. She in her examination-in-chief stated in detail the acts of the respondent and his family members. Except one or two statements, the cross-examination was taken down as if only suggestions had been given to her which had been denied.
8. PW2 Parameswar Jaiswal is an acquintance of appellant's family. He was one of the members who rescued the appellant from Bhadreswar. In his deposition he stated;
"At about 7/7.30 P.M. we again went to the above address in search of the petitioner. But the respondent was not found available, but the father of the respondent was found available. We narrated the incident to the father of the respondent. Firstly he denied the incident. We then created pressure on the father of the respondent. The neighbours of the respondent also created pressure on the father of the respondent. The father of the respondent then disclosed that his son alongwith the father of the respondent went to Bhadreswar. On going to Bhadreswar, we found the petitioner in a house. We found the petitioner was roped and her face
