In order to obtain a decree of nullity of marriage under Section 12 (1) (d) of the Hindu Marriage Act, the petitioner must prove that the respondent was pregnant by someone other than the petitioner at the time of the marriage, that the petitioner was ignorant of this fact at the time of the marriage, and that marital intercourse with the consent of the petitioner has not taken place since the discovery by the petitioner of the existence of the grounds for a decree.

( 1 ) APPELLANT Nand-kishore (husband) has preferred this appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter called the Act) dismissing his petition for a decree of nullity under Section 12 (1) (d) of the Act

( 2 ) THE marriage between the parties was solemnised on 2-5-1975 at village bara, tahsil Banda, district Sagar, according to Vaidic rites. The Bida ceremony took place on 3-5-1975 and they came back to Bina at the appellant's place on 4-5-1975. However, according to the prevailing custom, they immediately did not enter the appellant's house, but for sometime stayed in the house of a neighbour, Smt. Rajkunwarbai (P. W. 3 ). It appears from the statement of the appellant that they shared the bed for sometime and the marriage was thus consummated. The respondent (wife) lived with the appellant at Bina until middle of June. 1975. Thereafter, she left her matrimonial home and started living with her parents,

( 3 ) THE appellant alleges that the respondent was at the time of the marriage pregnant by some person other than the appellant himself. Although awara of this fact, she wilfully concealed it so that the marriage could be performed. The appellant pleads that being ignorant of this fact and as it was wilfully concealed from him, he consented to the marriage. He alleges that on the respondent's exhibiting signs of pregnancy in the middle of June 1975 that it was revealed to him that she was carrying. He alleges that she was then immediately examined by a doctor who certified that the pregnancy was about 14-16 weeks old. It is the case of the appellant that on 10-6-1975 the respondent voluntarily executed a writing (Ex. P-1) admitting that she had illicit intimacy with one ramkishore and had conceived from him. On 27--5-1976, he served a notice on the respondent and has filed this petition before the District Judge, Sagar.

( 4 ) THIS serious charge was very strongly refuted by the respondent who denied any cohabitation with any person prior to her marriage with the appellant. She denied that she was pregnant at the time of marriage. She accused the appellant of coercing her into writing the letter (Ex. P-1 ). According to her, she wrote it at the dectates of the appellant with ulterior motive of using it as a weapon of extracting money from her parents. She says that the appellant's greed of dowry prompted him to come out with such false accusations against her. She has specifically stated in paragraph 12 of her written statement that they had frequent marital intercourse during her stay with the appellant.

( 5 ) THE learned District Judge after very thorough scrutiny of the evidence adduced by the parties concluded that the charge levelled by the appellant against the respondent was false. He also held that Ex. P-1 was obtained from the respondent under coercion. In his assessment, the entire evidence adduced by the appellant is a piece of fabrication and concoction. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.

( 6 ) SHRI Y. S. Dharmadhikari, learned counsel for the appellant, first tried to assail the judgment of the lower Court stating that the appreciation of the evidence is incorrect. He referred us to the evidence of P. W. 3 Rajkunwarbai and P. W. 4 Dr. Smt. N. Ahmed and also to Ex. P-1 and persuaded us to take a different view of the matter than the one held by the learned District Judge. With this submission of the learned counsel, we are unable to agree. P. W. 3 rajkunwarbai is the appellant's neighbour with whom the couple stayed immediately after their marriage on return from Banda. This witness speaks of having seen certain signs of pregnancy in the respondent. In her cross-examination, however, she admits, that the parties stayed in her house only for a few hours and even during that period the respondent kept sitting with veil over her face. It is difficult to believe that, in such circumstances, she could detect the alleged pregnancy and that too in its early stage. She has, of c