A PREMCHAND Vs. V PADMAPRIYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Husband against the dismissal of this H.M.O.P.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 solomnised 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 8-3-1987 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 of 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 aspects, 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 Homoeopathy 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.) The respondent filed counter with the following contentions:- She has admitted the marriage. Due to the greedy behaviour and delaying tactics of the appellant to extract more money, gold jewels and assets from the respondent's parents, all the assets were handed over to him before the celebration of the marriage. She has denied all the other averments relating to furnishing of bio-data and particulars relating to her. She further averred that her elder brother V. Lakshminarayanan and her elder sister-in-law v. Latha on 15-2-1987 when giving invitations for the marriage, informed the appellant's parents that the respondent's year of birth was 1961. As instructed by the petitioner / appellant's father, the appellant came to Hyderabad on 22-2-87, who was then working in Kainadu and telephoned to respondent's residence to know the age of the respondent. As desired by the appellant, the respondent accompanied by her second brother went to Paradise Cinema premises in Secunderabad and thereafter, both the appellant and the respondent went to Hotel Asrani International at about 7.30 p.m., on 22-2-87 and the respondent gave all information to the petitioner/appellant about her year of birth of 1961 and years of passing her S.S.L.C. Inter and M.B.B.S. (Homoeo) examinations. The appellant was very much satisfied and he did not raise any objection for celebrating the marriage in the first week of March, 1987. Thereafter, neither the appellant nor his father raised any talk with the respondent's father about her date of birth. The respondent has given Streedhana for a total value of Rs. 1,59,995/- to the appellant between November, 1986 till 8-3-1987 and thereafter up to 8-11-1987 in the form of cash, gold and silver articles, silk sarees, house-hold articles etc., by their parents as agreed upon in the presence of mediator. On 15-3-87 when the appellant along with his parents visited respondent's house at Hyderabad to attend a reception, they again demanded additional amount of Rs. 10,000/- and left respondent at Hyderabad and went away in anger. On 2-7-87 a sum of Rs. 5,000/- was paid to the appellant by way of cash and another sum of Rs.2,500/- by way of Demand Draft. Still they were not satisfied. She further averred that when the respondent went to the appellant's house in June, 1987 and lived in their house for about a month, they did not raise any objection about her date of birth. On the other hand, the appellant demanded further amounts and sent the respondent away to her father's house by refusing to set up a family at Nellore. Again, the appellant demanded further amounts, besides his father wrote separate letters demanding more amounts and gold chain from the respondent's father. During the short stay with the appellant, she was ill-treated by the appellant as well as by his father. On 7-11-87 the respondent's father and her elder brother gave another sum of Rs.7,500/- and gold chain and all educational certificates as desired by her husband. On 8-11-87 the appellant asked the respondent to go to her father's house. Thereupon She respondent is living at Ammerpet, Hyderabad, by getting help of her father. The respondent wrote several letters to the appellant and his parents to join the petitioner/ appellant, besides herself and mediators went to appellant's house on 12-12-1987 and on 17-1-1988 for which the appellant refused. A negative reply was sent for the lawyer's notice given in May, 1988. Thereupon, the respondent filed maintenance case under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in Mahila Court, Hyderabad. On 16-8-88 an order of interim maintenance at Rs. 300/-per month was passed. Thereafter, the appellant filed the present case as a counter blast to respondent's M. C. No. 285 of 1988. It is also averred that after knowing the views of the astrologer from the appellant's side, the respondent and her father enquired the same and ascertained that there is nothing wrong in the respondent's horoscope and the appellant would not be affected due to the impact of her horoscope. The same thing was conveyed to the appellant's father after ascertaining the second opinion from the Crystal Computing Centre, No. 11, 2nd Street, Madras-86. Hence the allegation that the wife is not having Mangalyabalam is denied and there is no basis and proof. The marriage could not be annulled on the ground of over age, since the respondent is younger to the appellant with reference to the appellant's horoscope given by him and in accordance with his date of birth. The respondent is not suffering from any disease. After sending the respondent out, the husband has filed the present case inflicting more harassment and legal cruelty to the respondent. Absolutely there is no ground for declaring the marriage null and void, hence she prays for dismissal of the case.