ANJU SHARMA Vs. SURESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order of the Additional District Judge, Delhi whereby he dismissed the petition of the appellant under Section 12(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act (in short the Act) on the ground that since her marriage got registered before the Registrar of Marriage, therefore, drew the presumption that the respondent did not use force or undue pressure on her in obtaining her consent.

(2.) Aggreived by this order, the present appeal has been preferred, inter alia, on the ground that the learned ADJ ignored the provisions of Section 5 of the Act and also erroneously relied on extrenuous circumstances. The petition has been dismissed without affording opportunity to prove that her consent was obtained under threat.

(3.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that appellant sought annulment of her marriage with respondent because her consent was obtained under pressure, threat and by blackmailing her. The consent was obtained by playing a fraud on her. The story goes like this that she was waiting at the bus stop to catch bus for going home after she finished her classes. At that time, the respondent, who happened to be residing in the same locality as of her and being a neighbour, approached her and wanted to develop closeness. He was at that lime accompanied by his aunt. His aunt Ms.Pinki was known to the appellant. His aunt started talking to her. She persuaded the appellant to accompany to Malka Ganj where she alongwith the respondent was going to visit some relation. The appellant though not interested logo with her but due to pursuation of Ms.Pinki she agreed. Instead of going to the house of any relation the aunt of the respondent suggested that they should have coffee in a restaurant. Appellant agreed out of courtsy. They, therefore, went to the restaurant. Order for coffee was placed but the said aunt of the respondent wanted to goto toilet, therefore, asked the appellant to accompany her which the appellant did. After five minutes they came back to the table where respondent was sitting and had coffee and snacks. After drinking coffee appellant felt giddiness. Seeing this condition of the appellant, the said aunt asked the appellant to take rest in the nearby place which happened to be Kamla Nehru Ridge. The appellant was taken to a lonely place in the Ridge. The appellant became almost unconscious. Respondent taking advantage of lhis condition of the appelant look some objectionable photographs of the appellant. After getting better appellant came to home. She was not aware of the fact that her objectionable photographs had been taken by the respondent and his aunt. The appellant look up a job with M/s National Panasonic in NOIDA, Phase-II in Scplcmbcr,1994. Respondent coming to know about the same again tried to approach the appellant on one pretext or the other, but the appellant did not encourage nor replied to his advances. In the month of February,1995, the respondent slopped the-appellant on bus slop and told her that he wanted to talk something very important with her. He expressed the desire to marry her. When she declined, the respondent showed her objectionable photographs and told that-in case she did not abide by his dictate he would show these photographs to her parents and other people of the locality. The appellant got frightened with the idea of respondent showing objectionable photographs to her parents and people of the locality. She apprehended that her parents would be humiliated and hence got frightened. He also threatened to kidnap her sister in case appellant refused to enter into wedlock with him. On 10th May,l995 the respondent came to her office and compelled her to apply for leave on the ground that she was getting married to him on 12th May,l995. He even asked her to invite some of her friends. This she did because of threat, force and undue pressure exerted on her by showing her objectionable photographs. Under fear that her name would be spoiled in public and that her sister might be kidnapped she followed the dictates of the respondent. Being afraid she could not disclose to her parents or friends about the objectionable photographs or the threat and pressure exerted on her of objectionable photographs and of kidnapping of her sister. The respondent and his aunt Pinky and some other relatives took her to the Mandir in Sarai Rohilla and performed her marriage with respondent against her wishes and under threat. After the said marriage on 12th May,1995, the appellant came to her house. She did not disclose these facts to her parents because of the threat. She was forced to go with the respondent to the office of the Registrar of Marriage on 17th May,1995 which she did against her wishes and under duress. She was forced to sign the papers which were presented before the Registrar of Marriage. She could not open her mouth because of the threat. Hence, the marriage was got performed and registered against her wishes and under threat and force. Even after the alleged marriage she came back to her parents, when appellant refused to go with respondent. The respondent filed a petition for Habeas Corpus bearing Crl. Writ Petition No.342/95 in the High Court of Delhi. The parents of the appellant appeared before the Division Bench on 14th June, 1995. There she expressed her desire to live with her parents. In view of this statement, the respondent's petition was dismissed on 14th June,1995. Afterdismissal of his petition, the respondent threatened her father as well as the appellant. Her father lodged a complaint against the respondent with the police. The respondent then filed a petition under Section 9 of the Act, but the same was got dismissed as withdrawn by the respondent on 22nd January,1996. The appellant filed the petition for annulment of marriage. .The respondent filed an application under Order 7 Rule II of Civil Procedure Code. This application was not pressed by the respondent, therefore, dismissed on 30th 0ctober,1995. Thereafter written statement was filed. Issues were framed and the case was adjourned for recording evidence of the appellant on 30th November,l995. Statement of the appellant was recorded and thereafter the case was adjourned for her cross-examination. It is at this stage that the counsel for the respondent again agitated that the petition for annulment was not maintainable. On Ibis objection, the Trial Court framed the following issue, namely: 1) Whether the petition for the annulment of marriage is maintainable in view of the above facts and circumstances?