JUDGMENT

This petition under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 has been filed against the judgment dated 29.07.2013 passed by the family court, by which the petition filed by the appellant under Section 12(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) seeking a decree of nullity of marriage has been dismissed.

2. Facts giving rise to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that the appellant and the respondent were students of Carmel School, Padmanabhanagar, Bangalore and are known to each other.

3. The appellant filed a petition on or about

24.11.2012 inter alia on the ground that when her parents had gone out for Europe tour, the respondent obtained her consent by playing fraud and coercion and issued a threat to her. The respondent thereafter got registered the marriage between the appellant and respondent on 09.11.2010 before the Sub-Registrar, Indiranagar, it was pleaded that respondent had created fraud lease deed ,marriage invitation card and has forged the signature of the parents of the appellant as well. It was pleaded that no marriage took place between the parties on 05.11.2010 at Subramanya Layout, Old Transport Road, Bangalore. It was averred that in the month of March 2012, the respondent went to the house of the appellant and demanded the appellant be allowed to stay with the respondent as she is his wife. The petition was filed on or about 24.11.2012 seeking a declaration that the marriage performed between the parties is null and void as the consent of the appellant was obtained by playing fraud as well as coercion.

4. A notice of the proceedings was served on the respondent. The respondent evaded to receive the notice. Thereafter, he as served by a paper publication.

However, despite service of notice by paper publication, the respondent remained absent and was proceeded exparte.

5. The appellant examined herself and exhibited

10 documents viz., Ex.P1 to Ex.P10. The family court however, vide judgment dated 29.06.2013 has dismissed the petition preferred by the appellant.

Hence, this appeal.

6. None has appeared for the parties even when the matter was called twice. Therefore, we have perused the record.

7. Section 12 of the Act deals with voidable marriage Section 12(1)(c) provides that any marriage solemnized before or after commencement of the Act shall be voidable and may be annulled by a decree of divorce on the ground that the consent of the petitioner was obtained by the force or by fraud as to the nature of ceremony or as to any material fact or circumstances concerning the respondent. Section 12(1)(c) and Section

12(2)(a)(i) of the Act read as under;

12(1) Any marriage solemnised, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, shall be voidable and may be annulled by a decree of nullity on any of the following grounds, namely:—

(c) that the consent of the petitioner, or where the consent of the guardian in marriage of the petitioner 13 [was required under section 5 as it stood immediately before the commencement of the Child Marriage Restraint (Amendment) Act, 1978 (2 of 1978)*], the consent of such guardian was obtained by force 14 [or by fraud as to the nature of the ceremony or as to any material fact or circumstance concerning the respondent]; or

12(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), no petition for annulling a marriage—

(a) on the ground specified in clause (c) of sub-section (1) shall be entertained if—

(i) the petition is presented more than one year after the force had ceased to operate or, as the case may be, the fraud had been discovered;

Thus, from conjoint reading of the provisions, it is evident that in case, consent of a party to the marriage has either been obtained by playing fraud or coercion, the petition has to be filed within a period of one year on the date of which the fraud has been discovered.

8. In the instant case, as per the averments made in the petition, the marriage ceremony between the parties was performe