IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, does not apply to Scheduled Tribes.
(2) Scheme of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, is confined to marriages between two Hindus – Statutory conditions cannot be diluted by form or ceremony.

JUDGMENT

Vakiti Ramakrishna Reddy, J.—Aggrieved by the order and decree dated 11.07.2014 passed by the Family Court-cum-Additional District Judge, Nizamabad (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Family Court’) in O.P.No.158 of 2013, the appellant/petitioner has preferred the present Family Court Appeal No.195 of 2014, seeking to set-aside the said order and decree.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter shall be referred to as they were arrayed before the learned Family Court.

II. Brief facts of the case:

3. The petitioner filed a petition under Section 13 (1) (i) (a) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short ‘HMA’), seeking dissolution of her marriage with the respondent. The averments of the petition in brief are as under:—

a) The petitioner was a student pursuing Bachelor of Dental Surgery (BDS) at Meghana Institute of Dental Science, at Mallaram Village, Nizamabad District. In or about September, 2010, the respondent, who was residing in the same locality at Harijanwada, Utnoor Town, Adilabad District, started making repeated phone calls and sending messages to the petitioner through his Mobile Phone No. 73823 04608, expressing his desire to meet the petitioner, for which the petitioner clearly informed the respondent that she was not interested to meet him. She also specifically requested him not to make any phone calls or send any messages. Despite the same, the respondent came to the petitioner’s college and expressed his intention to marry her. But the petitioner refused the said proposal and warned the respondent that she would lodge a police complaint if he continued to harass her. On 07.05.2012, the respondent again came to the college and requested the petitioner to meet him at the bus stand to talk. The petitioner stated that she went to Nizamabad Bus Stand, where the respondent had shown her a bottle, stating that it contained acid, and threatened her to follow him silently without crying or creating any nuisance on the road, or else he would pour acid on her. Fearing for life, the petitioner silently boarded the Bus. The petitioner pleaded with the respondent not to ruin her career and informed him that she is only daughter to her parents and that her father, with great difficulty, had managed to get her admitted into the college. However, the respondent did not heed to her request.

b) On the same day at about 9.00 PM, the petitioner and the respondent got down from the bus at MGBS, Gowliguda, Hyderabad. Thereafter, on 08.05.2012 at 10.00 AM, the respondent again forcibly took the petitioner in a Bus and reached Nellore. The respondent took the petitioner in an Auto Rickshaw to his friend’s room and confined her thereby locking the said room. Next day morning i.e., on 09.05.2012, the respondent took the petitioner in an Auto to an Office, where he forcibly obtained two signatures of petitioner on certain papers and register/book, and thereafter again brought the petitioner back to his friend’s room. On the same day, again the respondent took the petitioner to a temple along with his friends and took photographs along with them and there he had declared that he had married the petitioner. He further threatened her not to disclose the said incident to anybody or to her parents, or else he would kill her brother. With great difficulty, the petitioner returned to Hyderabad and there-from to Nizamabad. Due to fear and threat she did not disclose the incident to anyone.

c) In August, 2013, when the petitioner was appearing for the practical examinations of the final year of BDS course, the respondent again came to the college and threatened her stating that after completion of her exams, he would take her with him. He also handed a copy of an alleged marriage certificate. The petitioner then discussed the matter with her parents and lodged a complaint against the respondent before SHO, Rural Police Station, Nizamabad. The petitioner stated that she had no knowledge of the alleged marriage dated 09.05.20