JUDGMENT :

Subrata Talukdar, J:

1. Under challenge in this appeal is a judgment and decree dated the 13th of December 2017 passed by the Learned Trial Court, being the Second Additional District Judge at Sealdah, in Matrimonial Suit No. 142 of 2017(for short referred to as the Learned Trial Court and the said MAT suit or only the MAT suit respectively).

2. By the impugned judgment and decree the Learned Trial Court upheld the prayer for annulment of marriage filed by the Petitioner/the Wife under Section 25(III) of the Special Marriage Act, 1954(for short the Special Marriage Act). The Respondent/the Husband in the MAT suit is the appellant before this Court (hereinafter referred to as the appellant/the husband). The respondent in this appeal is the wife (hereinafter referred to as the respondent/the wife).

3. The Learned Trial Court, inter alia, held that the consent of the respondent/the wife was obtained by the appellant/the husband by practising fraud. It was held that the appellant/the husband, prior to marriage and during their period of courtship, represented to the respondent/the wife that he was a school teacher earning a handsome salary. It was further represented that the family of the appellant/the husband was well-to-do and the appellant/the husband intended to start construction of his own house on a plot of land at Durganagar.

4. The couple were introduced to each other over Facebook in 2014. The introduction ripened into a love affair and the marriage was ultimately registered on 16th September 2016 before the Special Marriage Registrar, P.S. Maniktala, Kolkata – 67, under the jurisdiction of the Learned Trial Court.

5. The Learned Trial Court took notice of the contention of the respondent/the wife that two days after registration of the marriage, i.e. on 18th of September 2016, the appellant/the husband confided the truth connected to his actual state of affairs before the respondent/the wife. It was, inter alia, confided that the appellant/the husband is a Group-D staff and not a school teacher. His family did not belong to the well-to-do strata of society. He had contracted marriage with the respondent/the wife with the intention of gaining a respectable living standard out of her income.

6. To support her allegations before the Learned Trial Court, the respondent/the wife relied upon several documentary evidence which were marked as Exhibits. The documentary evidence pertain to several complaints before the police authorities as well as before the Cyber Cell of Kolkata Police. The complaints, inter alia, pertain to the alleged circulation of intimate and obscene pictures of the respondent/the wife with the appellant/the husband or of herself alone. Another set of evidence relate to the electronic messages sent over Facebook by the appellant/the husband to the respondent/the wife which demonstrated the fraud practised by him to entice the respondent/the wife into a marital relationship.

7. The defence of the appellant/the husband before the Learned Trial Court is one of denial. It is submitted that throughout the period of their courtship and following registration of their marriage, the respondent/the wife had visited the residence of the appellant/the husband and interacted with his family members. The actual physical and economic status of the appellant/the husband was therefore all along known to the respondent/the wife. There being no manner of concealment or misrepresentation on the part of the appellant/the husband, the prayer for a declaration of nullity of marriage under Section 25 (III) of the Special Marriage Act should fail.

8. Mr. Ghosh, Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant/the husband, takes the primary point that the so-called electronic evidence relied upon by the respondent/the wife before the Learned Trial Court in support of her stand that false representations have been made by the appellant/the husband were inadmissible as evidence. It is submitted that such electronic messages sen