The burden of proof lies with the petitioner to establish the nullity of a marriage, and the court must carefully evaluate the evidence presented.

JUDGMENT

Vipin Sanghi, J. - The appellant has preferred the present appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act 1984 read with Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 to assail the judgment and decree dated 04.03.2020 passed by the learned Principal Judge (East), Family Court, Karkardooma in H.M.A. No. 1458/18, "Meenu Sirohi versus Deepak". The said HMA case had been preferred by the respondent Meenu Sirohi under Sections 11 and 12(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act on the premise that the marriage between her and the appellant herein was a nullity on the ground that the same had not been lawfully performed, having being performed under coercion and pressure, in conspiracy with the neighbor of the respondent herein on 22.04.2015.

2. The case set up by the respondent in her petition was that on 22.04.2015, she was called to the residence of her neighbour Smt. Usha w/o Sh Ashwani Kumar r/o 42/2, East Azad Nagar, Delhi to discuss some issue, where the family members of the appellant herein were also present. Smt. Usha and the father of the appellant offered a glass of cold drink to the respondent which, despite her reluctance, she was forced to consume under the insistence of the appellant and his father. Upon consuming this drink, she became unconscious. She claimed that when she re-gained consciousness she found herself lying in a bed at the house of Smt. Usha, and found the appellant there with her. When she objected to the same, the appellant told her that they had gotten married at Arya Samaj Mandir, near Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, and she was now his wife. The respondent claimed to have protested against this marriage on the ground that the same had been performed without her consent, whereupon the appellant threatened to kill her and her mother by pointing a pistol at her. The respondent further claimed that the appellant repeatedly raped her without her consent, and then forcibly kept her captive in the house of Smt. Usha. She claimed that while she was undergoing this ordeal, her mother was not in Delhi and was visiting her ailing brother in their village.

3. The respondent claimed that at 06:00 P.M. on 27.05.2015, she managed to escaped from captivity from the house of Smt. Usha by running away to the house of a relative. The next morning, she reached her mother's village and narrated the whole incident to her. On 30.05.2015, the respondent claims to have returned to Delhi with her mother, whereafter they lodged complaint at the Krishna Nagar police station, against the appellant and his family members, as also her neighbours, Smt. Usha and her husband Ashwani Kumar. Consequently, FIR No. 427/2015 was registered against these persons at the said Police Station under Sections 343/328/366/376/34 IPC on 07.06.2015. She claimed that, thereafter, she had been living at her mother's residence and did not have any communication with the appellant herein. After urging that the photos and certificate of this marriage - having being obtained without her consent and under pressure and threats, were null and void, the respondent moved the petition before the Family Court seeking a declaration of nullity in respect of her so-called marriage to the respondent.

4. The appellant filed his written statement opposing the petition, by disputing the case set up by the respondent as being wholly false and a misuse of the process of law. He claimed that the marriage between the parties was a love marriage which was solemnized on 20.04.2015, and not on 22.04.2015 as claimed by the respondent/petitioner, before the Family Court. The appellant stated that the marriage had been solemnized at Arya Samaj Mandir, with the consent of both the parties, and duly registered by Sh. B.L. Meena, the Registrar of Marriages under the Hindu Marriage Act vide serial no. DC(C)/KT/2015/9960 on 20.04.2015.

5. The respondent filed her evidence by way of affidavit and was partly crossexamined on 15.10.2019. However, thereafter - the appellant failed to cross examine