A PREMCHAND Vs. V PADMAPRIYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Husband against the dismissal of his H.M.O.P.No.1007 of 1988 on the file of Principal Family Court, Madras, under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 praying for a decree of nullity by annulling the marriage solemnized between the appellant and the respondent on 8.3.1987 at Madras is the appellant in the above appeal before this court.

(2.) THE case of the appellant is briefly stated hereunder:- THE appellant (husband) and the respondent (wife) got married on 8.3.87 at Madras as per Hindu rites and customs. THE marriage has not been consummated till the date of filing of the present petition. It is averred that based on the bio-data and horoscope of the respondent showing the date of birth as 15.2.1963 sent in the month of September, 1986 by respondent's father to the appellant's father seeking alliance for his daughter, the appellant gave his consent for the marriage. THE respondent was evasive to produce her educational certificates to get employment through him. Only in November, 1987, the respondent disclosed that her father gave false horoscope mis-representing her year of birth as 1963 whereas it was actually 1961 and so she did not produce her educational certificates, in order to cover up the fraud, the appellant learnt that the respondent's date or birth was shown as 6.3.1961 as per school leaving certificate. THEreafter, the respondent's father wrote a letter on 11.11.87 showing the true horoscope of the respondent wherein it is mentioned the date of birth as 6.1.1961. After knowing the true date of birth of the respondent and when questioned, it was asserted by the respondent's father by letter dated 22.11.87 that the correct date of birth is 6.1.1961 and not the other two dates and apologised for the same. It is further averred that the original horoscope of the respondent showing the date of birth as 6.1.1961 and the horoscope of the appellant do not tally on certain vital aspe cts, as expressed by their astrologer. THE appellant and his family members have belief in horoscope. As per the statement of the astrologer, the appellant cannot live with the respondent any more. THE respondent disclosed the above said fraud only in November, 1987. THE respondent is a Homeopathy Doctor, she was unable to explain the fraud. Since the appellant was the victim, they cannot live together. Suppressing the said fraud, the respondent has also filed M.C.No.285 of 1988 on the file of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, claiming maintenance and the same is being contested by the appellant.

(3.) SINCE the husband raised the only contention before the court below as well as before us that the respondent and her father committed a fraud in getting his consent for marriage by furnishing wrong date of birth, it is unnecessary for us to go into the other factual position. Before winding up, it is useful to refer some of the decisions cited by both sides.