ROSLYN VINOLIA Vs. A PETER KANAKARAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE learned District Judge of Tiruchirapalli has passed an order of dissolution of marriage in I.D.O.P.No.10 of 1989 filed by the wife against her husband under Secs.18 and 22 of the Divorce Act, 1869 for a declaration of her marriage with the first respondent as null and void or in the alternative for judicial separation. THE matter is now posted before us for confirmation of that order under Sec.20 of the Indian Divorce Act.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner-wife is that the petitioner was married to the first respondent on 13.2.1984. Ever since the marriage the petitioner was ill-treated by the first respondent for extracting dowry money. She was beaten and abused with filthy language. She was deprived, of her gold jewels weighing about ten sovereigns., Unable to bear the harassment she attempted to commit suicide on 17.5.1984. In this connection a complaint was made to the police on 22.6.1984 but no action was taken. THEreafter there was no conhabi-tation between the spouses. In four months" time she was forced to come out of the matrimonial house. It is the further case of the petitioner that at the time of marriage she was only 15 years and four months old. This fact was suppressed and a false certificate was obtained from the church for the purpose of solemnisation of the marriage. Though the petitioner was not at all willing she was forced to marry the first respondent. She was forcibly converted from the protestant faith to Catholicism for the purpose of marriage with the first respondent who was a catholic. THEse illegal activities were perpetrated by the second and third respondents who are respectively the brother-in-law and mother of the petitioner. Now that the petitioner has become a major she wants an order of nullity of the marriage. On these grounds the petitioner has sought for an order declaring the marriage as null and void or in the alternative for judicial separation.

(3.) THE petitioner was examined as P.W.I and seven documents were filed. THE petitioner in her evidence has spoken to the effect that she was a minor at the time of the marriage and also about the ill-treatment meted out to her by the first respondent. Relying on this evidence of the petitioner and also Ex.A-3 complaint dated 22.6.1984 to the police by the petitioner's mother-third respondent. Ex.A-4 letter dated 1.6.1984 written by the first respondent-husband to the third respondent. Ex.A-5 notice dated 1.10.1988 issued by the first respondent through his counsel to the petitioner, and Ex.A-6 reply notice by the petitioner's counsel, the learned District Judge found that these prove the case of the petitioner. On this finding he passed an order for dissolution of marriage.