R ANITA MARGINIC Vs. R ANNADURAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed under Secs. 18 and 19 of the indian Divorce Act, 1869, to pass a decree and judgment declaring that the alleged marriage of the petitioner with the respondent is null and void and for costs.

(2.) THE facts leading to the filing of this petition may be set out as follows: THE petitioner is now aged about 19 years, her date of birth being 19. 4. 1972 as per the transfer certificate marked as Ex. P-3. She is the daughter of Mr. J. Robby and Mrs. Kethsi Bai. Admittedly they are born christians and members of C. S. I. Church, Mambalam, vide Ex. P-1 certificate issued by the C. S. I. Church. THE petitioner's father is a leading real estate businessman. THE petitioner was at times assisting her father. Her maternal aunt Suganthi, an unmarried lady employed as a teacher in Kilpauk used to visit the house often. She took a short term hand loan of Rs. 30 ,00 0 from the petitioner promising repayment in seven days. When she did not repay the amount and the petitioner's father scolded her, the petitioner insisted her maternal aunt to repay the money. Suganthi offered to go to her native place in Kanyakumari, arrange the money and bring back the same to be repaid. She persuaded the petitioner to go with her for a. short trip and the petitioner lent her Rs. 400 and went with her on 6. 7. 1990. THEy arranged a car and the respondent, an acquaintance of Suganthi, recommended by her for employment under the petitioner's father, accompanied them at the instance of Suganthi. Unsuspectingly the petitioner went with them. On the way they have taken the petitioner to Mayavaram, the native place of the respondent where the petitioner was detained in a remote house under constant vigil and signatures were obtained from the petitioner under threat and after severe beatings. THE petitioner was also made to sign some forms before the Registrar of Assurances allegedly purporting to register an alleged marriage and later on she was shifted to various places and ultimately to a house in Velacheri in Madras . Even there the petitioner was detained against her wish and the respondent had removed her jewellery and sold certain items. Some other items were also either sold or pledged through some relatives of the respondent. In the meantime, petitioner's father lodged a police complaint about her missing from the house and also filed a writ petition for the relief of habeas corpus arraying the petitioner's maternal aunt Suganthi and her relatives as respondents. THEy had obtained bail and the proceedings were not fruitful. On 18. 1. 1991, the petitioner could escape from the respondent's illegal custody and she returned to her parents. Immediately, necessary complaint was lodged by the petitioner with the police (F. I. R. 1390 of 1990, dated 18. 1. 1991 marked as Ex. P-4) and the police admittedly apprehended the respondent and have even recovered the illegally sold and pledged jewellery belonging to the petitioner. Criminal proceedings are pending against the respondent in the criminal Courts. Hence, the petitioner contends that no valid marriage took place between the respondent and herself and even the alleged marriage evidenced by Ex. P-2 (extract dated 26. 10. 1990 from the Hindu Marriage Register)is vitiated and bad in law since no such valid marriage could take place as she is a Christian and also since her consent to the alleged marriage was obtained by fraud, misrepresentation and coercion.

(3.) IN the light of the above evidence and pleadings, the controversy between the parties has to be resolved, and the arguments of both sides appreciated.