P S MOHANA SRINIVASAN Vs. GIRIJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant was the petitioner in O. P. No. 478 of 1973 filed before VI Assistant City Civil Judge, Madras. It was a petition filed by him under section 12 (1)(d) of the Hindu Marriage Act for annulment of the marriage by a decree of nullity on the ground that his wife was already pregnant by some one other than the petitioner even before the marriage.

(2.) IN the petition he claimed that the marriage with Girija, the respondent herein took place on 8th February, 1973 at Ambur and before the marriage, his relations had gone to see her is her father's house and she was a having a slightly prominent abdomen, but his relations were told that her constitution was such and that nothing was wrong with her. He had sot known her before marriage and had no occasion to meet her. Betrothal took place on 18th December, 1972 and after marriage, he was living with her is a separate house at Madras for just a month and within three months of marriage on 12th May, 1973, she complained of pain and immediately appellant brought a nurse working in the Corporation to attend on her and a child was born on that date g,t about 7.20 a.m. Shacked by the birth of the baby, he immediately informed her sister, sad later during the course of the day, the respondent along with the child was handed over to her sister at Madras. Hence, he has filed the present petition.

(3.) MR. R. S. Venkatachari, learned counsel for the respondent takes the preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the appeal on the ground that there can be no second appeal to this Court in view of what is provided under section 28 of Act XXV of 1955 and even if it be maintainable. since the restraints found in section 100, Civil Procedure Code would be applicable to this appeal, it will not be open to the appellant to canvass on questions of fact, and farther he contends that even if there can be consideration of the evidence on record to find out whether the onus had been properly discharged or not, when there are apparent contradictions in the evidence of P. Ws. No 3 and 4 and when no reliance can be placed on Exhibit A-5, A 6 and A-7, there is no cause to interfere with the findings of the lower appellate court particularly in a matrimonial matter in which the future of a girl is involved.