The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of free and voluntary consent for a valid marriage, as outlined in Section 12(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act, and supported by legal precedents.

VEENA BIRBAL, J.

1. By way of the first appeal under Section 28 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), a challenge has been made to the impugned judgment and decree dated 30.04.2011 passed by learned ADJ, Delhi in HMA No. 497/10/05.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that a petition for annulment of marriage with the appellant under Section 12(1)(c) of the Act was filed before the learned ADJ by the respondent wherein she had alleged that the appellant was employed as a “Driver” by her father who is a businessman. She has got two younger brothers and is the only daughter of her parents. The appellant used to drop her at school and also used to bring her back. She had averred that alleged marriage between the parties was solemnized on 27.08.2004 at Arya Samaj Mandir according to Hindu rites and ceremonies which was subsequently registered on 17.09.2004. The date of birth of respondent is 07.08.1986 and had just attained 18 years at the time of alleged marriage.

3. The respondent had alleged that on 09.03.2003 the appellant had picked her up from the school as it was the last day of her 11th class examination and while coming back to the house, the appellant told her that the mother of his friend was not well and he had to go to the house of his friend for giving some money. Thereupon he took her to the house of his friend and asked her to accompany him inside on the pretext that he would not leave her alone in the area. It is alleged that there he made her sit in a room and offered her a cold drink containing some intoxicant and on consuming the same, she became unconscious. Respondent had alleged that when she regained consciousness she found herself lying nude in the bed and had pain in her private part. She also saw appellant standing nude, next to the bed. It is alleged that appellant was having a camera in his hand. He had also told her that he had physically satisfied himself and had taken her objectionable photographs and in case she disclosed the same to anyone he would display her photographs publicly and ruin the reputation of her family. Respondent had alleged that out of fear, she did not disclose the same to anyone.

4. The respondent had further alleged that thereafter whenever appellant had found her alone he tried to indulge with her in an obscene behaviour and sometimes demanded money from her by threatening to defame her. It is alleged that on few occasions he had extracted money from her by giving threats to defame her by showing her photographs.

5. It was further alleged that on 27.08.2004 respondent was waiting for an auto rickshaw as she had to attend the birthday party of her friend. At that point appellant came in Maruti Car. The appellant had asked her to accompany him and asked her to sign certain papers and had threatened her that in case of refusal by her, his friend who was standing outside her house would distribute the posters of her photographs in the area and would defame her as well as her family members. It was alleged that under the threat given to her, she accompanied the appellant to Yamuna Bazar, opposite Hanuman Mandir where two persons were present i.e., a photographer and a Pandit. It was alleged that there the appellant had forcibly garlanded her. She had alleged that their joint photographs were also taken and she was made to sign certain papers/cards. She had alleged that everything was done there against her wishes as she was threatened to accompany the appellant there under the threat/fear of displaying/distributing her photographs.

6. It was further alleged that on 26.09.2004 her parents had to leave to Shiv Khori. It was alleged that on 24.09.2004 appellant had told her to steal jewellery of her mother and not to accompany her parents and in their absence, he would take her out of Delhi. She had alleged that she was already upset due to the alleged conduct of the appellant and did not act as per his bidding and went with her parents.