PADMAJA Vs. SIVARAMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A disappointed husband, who soon after the marriage, wanted to sever the marriage tie and moved the court for that purpose by seeking a decree of nullity of marriage, having lost his case in the court below has filed this appeal. The marriage took place on 11-2-1970 at Remadevi Mandiram at Trivandrum. The petitioner had visited the respondent's house earlier to see the girl he proposed to marry and it is his grievance that the girl shown to him then was not the respondent whom he subsequently married, but an younger girl. The suggestion is that it was the respondent's younger sister. He and his brother were particular about the horoscopes tallying before agreeing to the alliance and the horoscope supplied to the petitioner by the respondent's father tallied well according to the opinion expressed by an astrologer, PW 5. But it turned out later that the horoscope was not of the respondent, but of an younger girl possibly the younger sister. The marriage was conducted at Remadevi Mandiram as it appears that the respondent and her family were ardent disciples of Remadevi. The case of the petitioner is that the marriage was not conducted in any form recognised under the Hindu Law which governs the parties, the parties being Chettiars by caste. It is said that there was only exchange of garlands and tying of 'tali', and that would not be sufficient to create a valid matrimonial tie. After the marriage the bride was taken to the petitioner's house at Varkala and there was a reception in the evening of 11-2-1970, the date of the marriage. The nuptials had been, according to the petitioner, fixed for the next day, i.e. 12-2-1970 and it was only on that occasion that he could be in the bed chamber with his wife for the first time. He would say that he was shocked when the girl refused to permit him to touch her when they were together in the solitude of the bed chamber on the nuptial night. Then it was disclosed by her that she was ardently in love with one of her colleagues in her office, one Unnikrishnan Nair, with whom she wanted to live and therefore she could not afford to love the petitioner. The petitioner's case is that the parents of the respondent had also accompanied the respondent to the petitioner's house and on the evening of the 12th itself they were informed about the story told by the respondent. The attitude adopted by the respondent was said to be one of continued affection towards Unnikrishnan Nair and that was indicated by the letter she wrote to Remadevi Amma, marked as Ext. P6 in the case. By reason of such attitude of the respondent in which she persisted notwithstanding the advice of her parents, the parents had to take her back and they did so on 15-2-1970. Soon thereafter, on 18-2-1970 the petitioner moved the Subordinate Judge's Court, Trivandrum under the provisions of S.12(1)(a)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act for annulling the marriage between him and the respondent. According to him the marriage was caused by fraud he being persuaded to consent to marry the respondent by the active fraud played by the respondent's parents in that they showed another girl as the girl he was to marry and they gave another horoscope as if it was the horoscope of the proposed girl. But for these and had the facts been known as what they have turned out to be, there would have been no likelihood of consent by the petitioner. There is a further ground that in the absence of formal ceremonies which are the requisites of a Hindu Marriage the marriage cannot be said to be complete or legal.

(2.) The respondent has a different story to tell. She was working as a Clerk in the Exservicemen's Wood Industries at Trivandrum and she was aged 35 at the time of marriage. The petitioner was then employed as a Block Development Officer at Sultanbattery, and was aged 39. The respondent had passed the S.S.L.C. and had also passed the Bhooshan examination in Hindi. One Unnikrishnan Nair was working in the same office where the respondent was working. They were residing near the Remadevi Mandiram, Trivandrum and they were visiting Remadevi Mandiram now and then. The petitioner is said to have visited the respondent at her father's house, along with others including PW 8, and the wife and daughter of PW 8. The case of impersonation alleged by the petitioner is said to be false. It is also said that the horoscope sent was that of the respondent and not of anyone else and that the horoscope produced by the petitioner along with the petition was not the one which had been sent by the respondent's father to PW 8, but is said to be a fabricated one so as to make out the case that there was fraud in the conduct of the respondent. According to her the petitioner had many occasions to see her at close quarters at and after the marriage. The marriage ceremony took some time whereat the petitioner and the respondent were together, the respondent was garlanded by the petitioner and later he tied the 'tali'. Thereafter the respondent was taken to the petitioner's house in a car where there was a reception which lasted till later in the night and thereafter they were together in the bed chamber in the night of 11-2-1970 itself on which occasion the marriage was consummated. The case of the petitioner that nuptials were arranged on 12-2-1970 is denied. It is also said that the respondent never told the petitioner about any affection towards Unnikrishnan Nair. On the other hand what happened was that the petitioner suspected her association with Unnikrishnan Nair and therefore she is said to have been questioned as to whether Unnikrishnan Nair had sent any greetings for the marriage. When she said that there was one and it was innocent enough, the attitude of the petitioner changed and that was the start of the trouble between them. According to her parents did not accompany her to the petitioner's house. But when the father came over to the petitioner's house to take back the girls who had accompanied the respondent to the petitioner's house on the previous day, the respondent complained to him of the ill treatment by the husband. But the father pacified her. On the night of 12-2-1970 the respondent's mother along with the respondent's brother came to the petitioner's house. The mother also spoke to the petitioner to persuade him to believe that she was innocent. But the petitioner insisted that the marriage tie had to be severed. Thereupon the respondent's father was brought and the parents were wrongfully confined in that house. The respondent was forced to write a letter to Remadevi admitting that she was in love with another man and that she did not like to continue the marriage with her husband. A divorce deed is also stated to have been executed under such compulsion. On 15-2-1970 the parents of the respondent left the house of the petitioner with the respondent.

(3.) The plea that the marriage was not validly conducted was not accepted by the court below. It was also found that there was no question of any impersonation. The court found that there was no consummation of the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent. What happened, according to the finding of the court below, was that the respondent admitted to her husband about her affection to Unnikrishnan Nair and resisted the consummation of the marriage. But this, the court found, was not sufficient to hold that the marriage tie should be annulled. It could not be said, according to the court below, that there was misrepresentation with regard to the horoscope in that the horoscope of another girl was sent to the petitioner's brother inlaw instead of the horoscope of the respondent. The plea of impotency was also found against. The result was that the petition stood dismissed.