The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of valid consent for a marriage, as outlined in Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

JUDGMENT :

PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 19 of Family Court Act, to set aside the judgment and decree passed in H.M.O.P.No.27 of 2016, on the file of the Family Court, Madurai, dated 11.03.2019 by allow this appeal.

PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 19 of Family Court Act, to set aside the judgment and decree passed in H.M.O.P.No.377 of 2016, on the file of the Family Court, Madurai, dated 11.03.2019 by allow this appeal.

Mrs.Abinaya, who is the appellant in both the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, being aggrieved by the dismissal of her petition to declare the marriage registered at Kodambakkam Sub-Registrar Office on 07.12.2015 with the respondent Yogeshkumar as voidable marriage and allowing the petition filed by the respondent for Restitution of Conjugal Rights, is before this Court.

2. The contentions of the appellant before this Court is that she and the respondent were working together in IT Company at Thiruvanmiyur. On 30.11.2015 at Vadapalani Temple their marriage was solemnized in the presence of friends. On 07.12.2015 the marriage was registered. The appellant, who went to Madurai after that and stayed with her parents. She lodged a complaint at Tallakulam Police Station, Madurai alleging that under threat she was forcibly taken to the Registrar Office and marriage was registered. Hence, petition to declare the marriage voidable.

3. The respondent filed O.P.No.4690 of 2015 before the Family Court, Chennai, later transferred to Family Court, Madurai as against the appellant for restitution of conjugal rights. Whereas, the respondent, in his petition for restitution of conjugal rights, has contended that he and the appellant were in love while they were working together. When the family members of the appellant were engaged in searching alliance for her, to avoid that, she forced the respondent to solemnize the marriage immediately and only on her wish, on 30.11.2015 in the presence of the friends, the marriage was solemnized at Vadapalani Temple. Thereafter, the marriage was registered at the insistence and compulsion of the appellant. The decision to solemnize the marriage and get it registered was taken by the appellant and there is no force or threat. The said decision was forced on the respondent by the appellant to prevent the appellant's parents from getting her marry to somebody else against the wish of the appellant.

4. According to the respondent, the marriage was solemnized as per the Hindu Rites and customs at Vadapalani Temple on 30.11.2015 and the marriage was video-graphed and photographed. After the registration of the marriage on 07.12.2015, the appellant took permission from the respondent to meet her parents. Believing her, the respondent permitted the appellant to meet her parents. But due to certain external interference, more particularly, the husband of her sister, she had turn around and has filed a police complaint. Hence, sought for restitution of conjugal rights.

5. The parties have subjected themselves for trial and both parties were tried together by the Family Court, Madurai. The appellant was examined as P.W.1 and 6 documents were marked on her behalf. The respondent was examined as R.W.1 and 5 documents were marked on his behalf.

6. The Court below framed three points for consideration. Primarily, the plea of the appellant that the marriage alleged to have been solemnized on 30.11.2015 followed by its registration on 07.12.2015 whether is voidable marriage. Considering the photographs and CD of Videograph marked as Ex.R2 which were taken during the marriage ceremony and the Registration of marriage is marked as Ex.P4, the trial Court has come to the subjective satisfaction that the photograph does not show any sign of fear or threat in the face of the appellant and the contention of the appellant that she has given consent for the registration due to threat exerted on her appears to be a imaginary and false contention. As the consequence, the trial Cour