BALWINDER SINGH Vs. GURPAL KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against judgment and decree dated 8th April 1982 of an Additional District Judge (Miss Usha Mehra), whereby she declared the marriage solemnised between the parties on 7th April 1975 in accordance with Hindu rites and ceremonies (Anand Karaj) as null and void and granted a decree of nullity of marriage in favour of the respondent wife.

(2.) The undisputed facts of this case are that the marriage between the appellant and the respondent was solemnised in accordance with Hindu rites and ceremonies (Anand Karaj) on 7th April 1975 at Sant Nagar, New Delhi. The parties lived together as husband and wife uptil 26th April 1977. There is no issue out of the wedlock although the respondent conceived from the appellant twice or thrice but there was abortion every time. On 19th November 1979 the respondent made a petition under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for a declaration that the marriage between the parties was null and void inasmuch as the appellant had a living spouse at the time of their marriage. It was averred that at the time of their marriage the appellant had represented that his earlier marriage with Smt. Paramjit Kaur had been validly dissolved but she came to know later on that Smt. Paramjit Kaur was still alive and that her marriage with the appellant had not been dissolved in accordance with law. Hence the marriage between the parties was null and void being against the specific prohibition contained in Section 5 of the Act-

(3.) The petition was contested tooth and nail by the appellant who took the stand that his marriage with his first wife Smt. Paramjit Kaur had been duly dissolved in accordance with customs which governed the Sikh Jats of Punjabi including his family and aritten deed to that effect was executed by both him and his first wife on 2nd December 1972. This fact was duly notified when an advertisement was got published in a newspaper for his second marriage as a divorcee. He claimed that he had a daughter from his first wife who was just a child at the time of divorce and that this fact too was brought to the notice of the respondent and her relatives before their marriage was solemnised. Thus, according to him, the petitioner for declaration of nullity of marriage had been made malafide by the respondent who was under the evil influence of her brothers who wanted the marriage to break-up because they had grown pretty rich and on account of their debilitating and demoralising control over the respondent she had become physically weak and mentally distressed and had developed a propensity to fits of depies