The judgment highlights the requirement for specific and proven allegations of collusion in a judicial proceeding, emphasizing the need for sufficient evidence to support such claims.

In this civil revision filed under Article 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner is questioning the validity of the judgment dated 17-12-2007 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Agartala, West Tripura in Title Suit (Nullity) No.138 of 2007 declaring the marriage between the respondent No.1 and the respondent No.2 as null and void and also declaring the certificate of marriage obtained by them on 12-1-2007 as inoperative and null and void.

2. The petitioner is the second husband of the respondent No.1, whereas the respondent No.2 is the first husband of the respondent No.1. The case of the petitioner is that the marriage between the respondent No.1 and the respondent No.2 was solemnized on 14-12-2006 at Indranagar, and was thereafter duly registered before the Registrar, Hindu Marriage, West Tripura on 12-1-2007. According to the petitioner, he was not aware of this marriage nor was this fact disclosed to him by the respondent No.1. By suppressing her said subsisting marriage with the respondent No.2, the respondent No.1 entered into marriage with the petitioner on 29-11-2012 as per Hindu rites and customs. It is the allegation of the petitioner that when he met the respondent No.1 for the first time on 12-10-2012 at the house of her father, he had asked her if she had any previous relationship with any one else, she replied in the negative. On 27-3-2013, the respondent No.1 without telling him any reason left the house of the petitioner. On 1-8-2014, the petitioner got some information about the previous marriage between the respondent No.1 and the respondent No.2 whereupon he made an inquiry and managed to obtain the certified copy of the extract of the Hindu Marriage Register maintained in the Office of the Registrar, Hindu Marriage, West Tripura on 6-8-2014. Due to their cohabitation, a son was born to them on 6-11-2013. On 6-1-2014, the petitioner instituted a suit before the Family Court, Udaipur for restitution of his conjugal rights with the respondent No.1, which was contested by her by filing her written objection on several grounds. The respondent No.1, in turn, filed a complaint before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udaipur against the petitioner and his parents for commission of the offence punishable U/s 498-A IPC. A multiplicity of proceedings ensued thereafter with which we are not concerned herein.

3. It, however, transpired that Title Suit (Nullity) No.138 of 2007 had been filed by the respondent No.1 against the respondent No.2 before the Family Court, Agartala U/s 12(1)(C) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (“the Act” for short) to annul their marriage. To cut material facts short, the suit was contested by the respondent No.2 by filing his written statement on 21-11-2007 denying all the allegations. Apparently, on the same day, a joint application was filed by them for cancellation of their marriage registration certificate. The Family Court by an order on the same day rejected the joint application on the ground that the compromise was unlawful and fixed 4-12-2007 for order. On 4-12-2007, the Family Court heard both the parties and fixed 17-12-2007 for judgment. It was on 17-12-2007, the Family Court passed the impugned judgment under Order 12, Rule 6, CPC purportedly on the basis of the admission made by the parties in their pleadings. It is against this judgment that this civil revision is filed.

4. The main contention of Mr. J. Majumder, the learned counsel for the petitioner, in attacking the impugned judgment is that when there was collusion between the respondent No.1 and the respondent No.2 as evident from the filing of the joint application; the joint application was violative of, and has made a mockery, of the verification of their pleadings under Section 20(1) of the Act. He submits that the suit is nothing but a sham and fictitious one and was instituted by the respondents collusively to get over the rigours of the divorce law. Moreover, contends the learned counsel,