ILA BHARTI Vs. SAUMITRA SHANTANU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal filed under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') assailing the order and decree dated 04.09.2004 in H.M.A. No. 1008/2003 passed by the learned Additional District Judge whereby application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'CPC') filed by the respondent herein was allowed and the petition under Section 12 (1) (c) of the Act filed by the appellant herein was rejected.

(2.) The case of the petitioner appellant herein is that her marriage with the respondent was solemnized on 12.05.2001 under threats and pressure from the respondent and so there was no valid consent of the petitioner. It was alleged by the petitioner in the petition before the matrimonial court that she was abducted by the respondent on 11.05.2001 and was forced to marry him without her consent who subjected her to cruelty, threat and criminal force and also committed rape on her during the period of her illegal confinement. On 28.05.2001, appellant managed to escape from the confinement of the respondent while he was asleep and then she went to the police station and lodged an FIR in New Friends Colony Police Station under Sections 365/376/506/342 Indian Penal Code against the respondent on 28.05.2001. The appellant further averred that since then the respondent had been threatening her to refrain from pursuing the criminal case and was also trying to malign her reputation in the public by getting false and fabricated articles published in the local newspaper in Bokaro in collusion with the editor etc.

(3.) During the course of the said proceedings under section 12(1)(c) of the Act the respondent moved an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the petition solely on the ground that the petition was time barred under Section 12(2)(a)(i) of the Act since even as per the averments in the petition force had ceased to operate on 28.05.2001 when the petitioner appellant herein, had escaped from the custody of the respondent.