A marriage between sapindas, as defined under Section 3(f)(i) and (ii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, is null and void under Section 11 of the Act, unless there is a custom or usage permitting such a marriage.

Nishita Mhatre, J.

The appeal is preferred against the decision of the Family Court, Calcutta, in Matrimonial Petition No. 50 of 1998. The suit was filed for a declaration that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent, i.e., the appellant and the respondent herein was null and void. That prayer has been dismissed by the Family Court. However, it has granted a decree of divorce and the marriage solemnized on 18thDecember, 1996 has been dissolved.

2. The brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are as follows:

The appellant, Priyanka Das while still a minor, had been lured out of her school by the respondent and had been kidnapped by him with the help of his friends. She was driven away to a place where she found that arrangements had been made by the respondent for solemnizing their marriage. After the rituals she was made to sign some blank papers. After the marriage was solemnized as per the Hindu customs and rituals on 18th December, 1996, the couple lived in Siliguri for a few days and returned to Kolkata on 23rd December, 1996. Priyanka was rescued with the help of the police on 25th December, 1996. Priyanka's mother Sonali Das then filed the present suit before the Family Court on her behalf as Priyanka was still a minor. The main contentions raised in the plaint were that the bride and bridegroom were within the prohibited degrees of relationship and therefore the marriage was null and void. It was also pleaded that Priyanka being a minor at the time of marriage had been coerced into the marriage. Besides this it was pleaded that Priyanka had been compelled to marry the respondent under duress. It was also pleaded that the marriage took place because of the fraud perpetrated by the respondent who was her mother's cousin and who Priyanka regarded as her uncle.

3. A written statement was filed by the respondent Sujit Kumar Das contending that the parents of Priyanka Das had consented to the marriage and that he had not in any manner compelled Priyanka to marry him. It is further pleaded that although initially the mother of Priyanka, Sonali Das was to participate in the marriage ceremony, she went back on her word and filed a police complaint against the respondent and thereafter the present suit. Significantly, the respondent has not denied the fact that the appellant's mother was his first cousin or that the appellant was a minor when they got married.

4. Evidence was led by both the parties before the Court in support of their respective contentions. The appellant examined herself, her parents and an uncle. All the witnesses have corroborated each other's testimony. Each of them has reiterated that the appellant was a minor at the time of marriage and that she was the daughter of the first cousin of the respondent. Priyanka has described how she was lured out of school by the respondent and was later kidnapped. She has been cross-examined in great detail. However, she has stood her ground and has not swayed away from her statements made in the examination-in-chief.

5. The respondent examined himself and Gopal Poddar, Biswajit Kar and Ashok Ghosal. Ashok Ghosal was the priest, who solemnized the marriage on 18th December, 1996. Gopal and Biswajit are friends of the respondent. They were present when Priyanka was taken away from her school and when the marriage took place.

6. Documentary evidence including the birth certificate of the appellant was produced on record before the Trial Court. It clearly indicated that she was born on 6th February, 1980 and was therefore a minor when she was married.

7. After scanning the evidence before it, the Family Court has dismissed the petition on the ground that the appellant and the respondent did not fall within the prohibited degrees of relationship as they were not uncle and niece. It was held that the respondent being the cousin of the appellant's mother could not be considered as her uncle within the dictionary meaning of the term ‘uncle’. Therefore, the Co