The central legal point established in the judgment is the nullity of marriages under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, due to the respondent's minority and incapacity to give valid consent, as well as the requirement for proper service of summons and fair conduct of proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

S.K. Sahoo, J.

1. This is an appeal filed by the appellant Mamata Mayee Sahoo under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, challenging the impugned judgment and order dated 3.10.2012 of the learned Judge, Family Court, Rourkela passed in Civil Proceeding No. 13 of 2012 in allowing the petition filed by the respondent under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 ex parte and declaring the affidavit marriage between the appellant and the respondent dated 14.1.2011 and the temple marriage between them on 21.1.2011 as null and void.

2. The respondent filed a petition under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 against the appellant with a prayer to pass an order declaring the marriage between the parties as void and to pass a decree of nullity. The petition was presented before the learned Judge, Family Court, Rourkela on 17.1.2012 and accordingly C.P. No. 13 of 2012 was registered.

It is the case of the respondent that he was an Engineering Graduate of 2011 from BPUT, Orissa, but since he was unemployed, he was residing with his father at Rourkela. The appellant was also at that point of time residing in Rourkela though she was a permanent resident of Cuttack.

It is the further case of the respondent that in the 1st week of January, 2011, he received a telephone call on his mobile from a lady wishing him New Year greetings. Subsequently, the unknown caller divulged her name as "Mamata" and asked the respondent to keep friendship with her and continued to keep on chatting over phone. She also requested the respondent to visit her at Cuttack.

It is the further case of the respondent that on 13.1.2011, the respondent had been to Bhubaneswar in connection with his examination and there he received a call from Mamata who invited him to visit her during his return journey and accordingly he visited the house of the appellant which is situated at Rajendranagar at Cuttack where the appellant was residing with her family. The appellant along with her family members enquired from the respondent about his family background. The respondent had neurological problem at that point of time and was in a state of mental depression and he fell sick. Taking advantage of the situation, the appellant and her family members insisted the respondent to stay in their house and accordingly the respondent stayed there during the night. On 14.1.2011, during afternoon, the respondent was taken to the Court premises at Cuttack by the family members of the appellant where they got an affidavit sworn by the respondent declaring that the respondent had married the appellant. According to the case of the respondent, as on 14.1.2011 he has not attended the marriageable age of 21 years, as her date of birth is 10.6.1990. The respondent was administered with some medicine for which he felt drowsy and he was compelled to remain in the house of the appellant.

It is the further case of the respondent that on 21.1.2011, he was taken to village Bilasuni where in a temple, his mock marriage was performed with the appellant. Even the father and guardian of the family of the respondent were not informed about such marriage. Two to three days thereafter, the respondent came back to Rourkela and after coming to Rourkela, he prepared himself for the final Engineering Examination under B.P.U.T. During October, 2011, the respondent had been to his native place and was returning back to Rourkela via Cuttack and at Badambadi Bus Stand, he was threatened by the father of the appellant and some of his driver friends and they insisted him to keep relationship with the appellant. The respondent got a job in Raipur at Chhatisgarh in November, 2011 in a Company and joined there. On 19.12.2011, the appellant alongwith her three unknown boyfriends arrived there and tried to kidnap the respondent, but the respondent somehow managed to escape from the place and came to Rourkela.

According to the case of the respondent, there was no marital relationship between the parties and