SHAJI Vs. GOPINATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by the plaintiff in O.S. 16/92 on the file of Additional Family Court, Madras. The prayer in the suit is to declare that the marriage registered on 22-8-91 according to the Certificate No. 221/91 on the file of the Registrar of Hindu Marriages is not a valid marriage at all and to set aside the said Certificate as null and void.

(2.) The case of the plaintiff/ appellant is as follows:- She is, a final year B.A. student in Bhiraj College, Madras. She was introduced to the defendant sometime back by a common friend. The defendant gave a flowery picture of the education and the status in life and represented to her that he was going to U.S.A. soon and he could get a visa for her too. He promised to get her a good employment in U.S.A. immediately on her completion of education. He took her signatures in the forms of application for passport. On 22-8-91 he induced her to go to the office of the sub-Registrar, T. Nagar, fraudulently representing her that a marriage certificate should be obtained for the purpose of getting a Visa in her name and she should be described as wife. The plaintiff signed the necessary forms before the Registrar and false declarations were given by the defendant in the office of the Registrar. Thereafter, they went to their respective houses and they never lived together as husband and wife. But it was then discovered by the plaintiff that the representations made by the defendant were dishonest and false and he made her to sign in the forms on false pretext. The Marriage Registration Certificate was null and void and the plaintiff is entitled to a declaration as such.

(3.) The defendant, after receiving summons in the suit remained ex parte. He was set ex parte. The plaintiff gave evidence in support of her case. The learned Judge of the Additional Family Court dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiff and the defendant liked each other, loved each other and thereafter they had their marriage registered at the Sub-Registrar's Office without any inducement or external pressure on them. The learned Judge held that on the basis of the evidence of P. W. 1 it was not possible to grant relief, as prayed for in the suit.