IMPORTANT POINT
Hindu Marriage Act will have no application to a case where both parties are not Hindus.

Vinod K. Sharma, J.—This appeal by the appellant/wife is directed against the judgment and decree dated 07.03.2006 passed by the learned Additional District Judge-I, Faridabad on a petition filed by the respondent/husband for dissolution of marriage by a decree of nullity under sections 5 and 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act (for short the Act).

In order to appreciate the controversy between the parties it would be appropriate to reproduce the averments made in the petition in toto:

“1. That the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 28th November, 1999, at Arya Samaj Mandir, Rathkhana, Bikaner, according to the Hindu rites and ceremonies. The respondent (Bhavna) gave a written affidavit to the Arya Samaj for the performance of the ceremony, that she is a spinster and has never been married before in the past. An affidavit duly attested affirming the place and date of marriage is enclosed.

2. That the status of the parties to the petition at the time of marriage and at the time of filing this petition (which came to knowledge of the petitioner subsequent to marriage) are as under:

3. That no issue was born out of the said wedlock. Actually, the parties never ever lived together as husband and wife.

4. That the parties have been living separately since 28th November, 1999 and have had no cohabitation. That the petitioner has continued to live separately since the said date, he has not consummated or cohabited or condoned the acts of respondent during this period.

5. That upon detection of fraud at the marriage, the parties did not even begin to live together as husband and wife, and till date have never lived together as husband and wife: Further acts of fraud were discovered/occurred in Delhi and other palaces.

6. That the petitioner is a pilot with the Indian Air Force and was posted as Pilot Officer at Hakimpet (Hyderabad) in April, 1997. In the last week of April, 1997 the petitioner was travelling by train from Delhi to Hyderabad, where he met respondent and she introduced herself as ‘Bhavna. She claimed to be the Vice Principal of St. Peters Convent, Vikas Puri and a journalist. Respondent further claimed that she was travelling to Hyderabad in connection with a book she was writing on Anglo Indians. During the conversation respondent claimed to be a virgin spinster and gave her age (then) as 27 years. During her stay in Hyderabad respondent phoned and arranged to meet the petitioner to ask for petitioner’s advice on the book she was writing. Much later the petitioner learnt that the respondent had actually gone to Hyderabad to give her B.A. Exams from Osmania University.

7. That during her subsequent visit to Hyderabad, on Sunday 25.05.1997, the respondent, unannounced, visited the petitioner at the Air Force Base. During the conversation the respondent portrayed herself to be an educated, influential and competent journalist.

8. That some time around the first week of July, 1997, the petitioner was in Delhi, onward to a posting at Chabuwa. The respondent called the petitioner and at her request the petitioner met the respondent. With an intention to cheat the respondent fraudulently, dishonestly, impersonated herself to be an educated, influential and competent Journalist, a Hindu virgin spinster, and (then) aged 27 years.

9. That around the third week of March 1998, the petitioner met respondent at Sona Rupa restaurant in Nehru Place, Delhi, and deceived (and cheated, and induced) by her above dishonest misrepresentations and impersonation, the petitioner gave the respondent a gold chain (which the petitioner was wearing at that moment) worth Rs. 9,000/-. Owing to the aforesaid impersonation and misrepresentations, the interaction between the two continued, wherein respondent continued to call and write letters to the petitioner, and the petitioner used to write back.

10. That during the petitioner’s posting at Nal (Bikaner), in addition to the above misrepresentations and impersonation wh