JUDGMENT :

R. Subramanian, J.

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal arises out of the proceedings under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act launched by the husband seeking a declaration that the marriage between him and the respondent held on 04.12.2003 is null and void and for costs.

2. According to the appellant, the father of the respondent had approached the father of the appellant in July 2003 and had negotiated for marriage between the appellant and the respondent. During the entire negotiation, the father of the respondent had represented that he is a Hindu and the respondent is also a Hindu. Betrothal ceremony was conducted on 31.08.2003 and the marriage also took place on 04.12.2003. After marriage, spouses lived together at Velayanvilai till 11.12.2003. Since the appellant was working at Chennai the spouses settled down permanently at No. 15, Venkateswara Street, Thambaram West, from 12.12.2003. In the course of the said living at Chennai, to his surprise, the appellant found that the respondent was not living as a Hindu and she was adopting Christian faith. On suspicion, the appellant made enquiries and discovered that the respondent and her family were Christians and they misrepresented their religion to the respondent and had obtained his consent by practising fraud. It was also contended that school records of the respondent showed that she was a Christian and she had also obtained Community Certificate showing that she was a Christian.

3. In the interregnum, it appears that there were certain complaints made to the Police regarding demand of dowry etc. These allegations are not very material for the purpose of this appeal as the decree of nullity is sought for by the appellant on the ground that consent of the appellant was obtained by suppression of material fact namely, the religion of the respondent. Contending that a Hindu marriage could be held or performed only among two Hindus, the appellant would contend that the marriage performed on 04.12.2003 between the Hindu and non-Hindu as per Hindu rites is null and void.

4. This claim of the appellant was resisted by the respondent contending that she and her family were always Hindus. As regards the entries in the school records, it was the contention of the respondent that they were made by mistake as the father of the respondent did not accompany her for admitting her in school. It was also claimed that the marriage of the father of the respondent itself was conducted as a Hindu marriage in a Temple and therefore the claim of the appellant that the respondent was not a Hindu is false to the knowledge of the appellant. It is her further contention that the application itself is motivated in order to wriggle out of the consequences of the complaint lodged by the respondent against the appellant and his family for demanding dowry and other matrimonial offences.

5. At trial, the appellant was examined as P.W. 1 and other witnesses were examined as P.W. 2 to P.W. 5. The respondent was examined as R.W. 1 and her father was examined as R.W. 5 and other witnesses were examined as R.W. 2 to R.W. 4. Exts. P.1 to P.24 were marked on the side of the appellant and Exts. R1 to R.11 were marked on the side of the respondent.

6. The learned I Additional Subordinate Judge, Nagercoil, who heard H.M.O.P. 20 of 2005, on consideration of the evidence, concluded that the appellant has not established his claim that the respondent had misrepresented regarding her religion at the time of marriage beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, he is not entitled to a decree of nullity.

7. Aggrieved, the appellant/husband had filed an appeal in A.S. No. 3 of 2007. The learned District Judge, Kanyakumari at Nagercoil, on a re-appreciation of the evidence, concurred with the findings of the Trial Court and held that it has not been proved that there was violation of Sections 5 and 12(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act by the respondent or by her family which would entitle the appellant to get a decre