LILLYKUTTY MATHEW Vs. C J SIMON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition filed by a Christian wife for a decree of nullity of marriage with the respondent, also a Christian, particularly on the ground that the consent of the petitioner for the marriage in question with the respondent was obtained by fraud.

(2.) The petitioner's case, as stated in the petition, is as under :-

(3.) The respondent has filed counter affidavit denying the petitioner's case and stating that the respondent had done his B.A. in Economics and the respondent was employed as a representative with Agro Chemicals and was receiving Rs.1500.00 from the said employment. The respondent has asserted that the respondent was a degree holder and had a reasonable job, temporarily, at the time of marriage and that his financial stability was also sound, that he never informed anybody that he was the owner of 3 acres of land and a house; the 3 acres of land and a house was the property belonging to the respondent's father. The marriage was an arranged marriage and there were sufficient enquiries from both the families before the marriage as the two families are situated within a distance of 8 kms. The financial status of both the families was equal at the time of marriage and since the respondent had a reasonably good job, temporarily, at the time of marriage, the respondent's financial stability was also sound. The petitioner was a Typist and she did not pass the pre-degree course. Hence, she cannot legitimately expect a higher qualification from her husband. Before the marriage, the petitioner's parents and other relatives visited the respondent's house on four occasions and ascertained and knew the real situation. There was no occasion for the respondent to tell the petitioner that the respondent was the youngest son of his parents as the respondent had one elder brother and one younger brother. The respondent also denied the petitioner's case of demand of Rs.10,000.00 as pocket money before the engagement or thereafter. The petitioner and the respondent had a private talk on the first occasion for about 40 minutes. The respondent did not ask for any dowry of Rs.1,00,000.00 from the petitioner or her parents nor did the respondent receive any gold from the petitioner and her parents, but the petitioner's father assigned about 45 cents of land in the joint names of the petitioner and the respondent. The respondent also denied the petitioner's case that the respondent had mortgaged the petitioner's gold or that the respondent had a debt of Rs.20,000.00 at the time of marriage. It is stated that the petitioner returned to Ahmedabad on her own volition. It is also contended that it was not the respondent who was demanding money from the petitioner, but the petitioner was demanding money from the respondent. As regards the age, the respondent admits that at the time of marriage he was aged 41 years and the petitioner was aged 29 years but the respondent denied the allegation that he had held out his age to be 31 years. The respondent has also stated that he had never gone to Ahmedabad and that this Court has no jurisdiction to hear and decide this petition. As regards the allegations of impotence, the same are denied and various letters are produced with the counter affidavit to show smooth relations between the parties.