RAJ KAPOOR Vs. SARIKA TANDON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present First Appeal is preferred under Sec. 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 against the ex-parte judgment and decree dtd. 31/5/2022, passed by the Judge, Family Court, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar in Original Suit No. 198 of 2020 Raj Kapoor vs. Smt. Sarika Tandon. By the said ex-parte judgment and decree, the petition filed by the appellant-husband under Sec. 12 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking the declaration that the marriage solemnized on 30/6/2020 be declared as void, is dismissed.

(2.) The facts of the appellant's case may be briefly stated as follows: The plaintiff/appellant got married with defendantrespondent Smt. Sarika Tandon on 30/6/2020. There was no demand of dowry, and the marriage was solemnized in the presence of their relatives. The entire expenditure of marriage at Hotel, Meals etc. was borne by the father of the plaintiffappellant. After the marriage, the appellant-plaintiff tried to make physical relations with his wife on the first night, however, the defendant said that she is unwell and she does not want to make relations and on this, the plaintiff got annoyed with the defendant-respondent. After 2-3 days of the marriage, the plaintiff got his wife medically checked-up from a Homeopathic Doctor, namely, Dr. Rajesh Bishnoi, who prescribed some medicines after asking about the symptoms from his wife. After taking the medicines for 4-5 days, the defendant-respondent (wife) told the plaintiff-appellant (husband) that she is fine now. The plaintiff/appellant again tried to establish relations with the defendant-wife, but she kept postponing it on one pretext to another. The appellant/plaintiff gifted a mobile phone on her demand costing Rs.12,000.00 on 22/7/2020, and mother of the plaintiff/appellant also spend Rs.7000.00 in shopping for Smt. Sarika Tondon. The defendant-wife, even then did not give any importance to the plaintiff. After the marriage, the family of the plaintiff also organized a function on 23/7/2020 on the occasion of a festival "xxx xxx". It is further contended by the appellant-plaintiff that till 28/7/2020, the defendant-wife had not made any physical relations with the plaintiffappellant and at about 9:00 A.M. on 28/7/2020, the defendant-wife went with her brother Kapil Tandon to live for some days with him and she took 4 gold bangles weighing 66 Grams, (costing Rs.3,50,000.00 approximately); one diamond ring costing of Rs.52,000.00; one eaxyl w= with Diamond Pendulum costing Rs.90,000.00; one ring, ear tops, chain, and one Diamond pendulum costing of Rs.1,50,000.00; gold chain with Rhodium polish. The appellant-plaintiff gave also an amount of Rs.4,000.00 in cash and Rs.700.00 for sweets. It is further contention of the appellant-plaintiff that the defendant took her cloths in a suitcase and other articles and she told the plaintiff and his family members that after Rakshabandhan and before the Bhaiadooj festival (HkkbZ fcUuk), she would come back. Before Rakshabandhan, the plaintiffappellant made a phone call to the defendant on 1/8/2020 asking her on which date he should come to Moradabad to take her. The defendant-respondent told that she would inform after asking from her brother and sister-in-law and when there was no response then again the plaintiff-appellant made a phone call to the defendant-respondent on the next day, however, the defendant-respondent told him that her brother and sister-in-law are requesting for staying one or two more days. On the same day, i.e., 2/8/2020, another phone call was received by the mother of the plaintiffappellant Smt. Neelima from the aunt of his wife (defendantrespondent) and she told that since no physical relations had been established between Raj Kapoor (plaintiff/appellant) and Sarika (defendant-wife) and it appears that Raj had some physical deficiency and sent him to Moradabad for medical check-up at COSMOS Hospital. After hearing this, the plaintiff was shocked as the defendant in order to hide her impotency blamed the plaintiff-appellant being physically impotent. Thereafter, father of the plaintiff/appellant talked with the family members of the defendant and gave a proposal for check-up of both, the plaintiff (husband) and the defendant (wife). The defendant and her family members refused to accept the said proposal and told that the plaintiff should be tested. After hearing this, father of the plaintiffappellant got annoyed and said that the plaintiff would not be tested alone but both should be tested. Due to this, the differences arose between both the families.

(3.) Thereafter, the plaintiff-appellant preferred an Original Suit No. 198 of 2020 under Sec. 12(1) (a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking a decree of annulment of the marriage between the plaintiff-appellant and the defendant-respondent and also for declaring the marriage as null and void. The learned Family Court issued the notices to the defendant-respondent but she had not appeared before the court below in spite of service of notice nor any objection or reply was filed on her behalf. Consequently, the Court below vide order dtd. 18/8/2021 ordered that the proceedings will be initiated ex parte against the defendant.