JAMBOO PARASAD JAIN Vs. MALTI PRABHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two civil revisions are between the same parties and arise out of two different orders passed in the same matrimonial suit and it will be convenient to decide them by a common order.

(2.) SHRI Jamboo Prasad Jain, hereinafter referred to as the petitioner filed a petition under Ss.12 and 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, read with the provisions of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 for a declaration that the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent was null and void or a decree for divorce be granted to the petitioner against the respondent. He alleged in the petition that the marriage of the parties was solemnised at Rohtak on 25-4-1970 and the parties were Jain Hindus. It was alleged that the mother and the father of the respondent were in, active collusion with the respondent and defrauded the petitioner. At the time of the marriage the respondent was suffering from schizophrenia, a mental illness which comes within the purview of lunacy, with lucid intervals. It was also stated that schizophrenia is a mental illness which cannot be cured. The respondent was of unsound mind at the time of her marriage and from before. In the alternative it was stated that if the petitioner was not able to prove the unsoundness of the mind of the respondent, the latter was extremely cruel to the petitioner during the time they stayed together. The facts in support thereof were stated to ask for an alternative relief of divorce. A written statement was filed by the wife on 7-4- 1971. Issues were framed on the following day. Issue No. 1 was in regard to the question as to whether the respondent was mentally unfit and deficient as alleged by the petitioner on the date of marriage or before and whether the marriage was null and void under S.12 of the Act. Issue No. 4 was whether the petition was cognisable in the Court of the Civil Judge. This issue was decided by the learned Civil Judge by his order dated 19th April, 1971 and it was held that the Court had jurisdiction to try the suit. The petitioner examined his witness. Thereafter date was fixed for recording of the evidence of the respondent. Thereafter the respondent sought the amendment of the written statement by saying that inconsistent pleas in the petition under Ss.12 and 13 of the Act could not be permitted. This plea was rejected. A revision was filed and the revision was dismissed. On the 25th Sept. 1971 the Court rejected an other application of the respondent praying that the petitioner be directed to inform the Court about the exact case and to elect one of the alternative cases in the petition. This application was rejected. Time was obtained on several occasions and ultimately an appeal was filed by the respondent before the District Judge. After the disposal of the appeal the file was received on 20-1-1972 and the Court ordered the case to be put up for fixing a date in the case. 16th Feb. 1972 was fixed for evidence and arguments. The respondent was absent. The Court treated the proceedings as one under Order XVII Rule 3 C.P.C. and the very same day passed a judgement allowing the petition. The suit was decreed against the respondent and it was declared that the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent Smt. Malti Prabha held on 25th April, 1970 was null and void. Smt. Malti Prabha, filed the Civil Appeal No. 98 of 1972 against the decree dated Feb. 16, 1972 before the District Judge on 24-4-1972. This appeal is still pending. The petitioner moved an application dated 4-1-1975 stating that after his marriage with the respondent had been declared null and void, he had contracted marriage with one pratibha Jain on 19th Feb. 1972 and there were two issues born from this wedlock. He prayed that the appeal be declared to have become infructuous. This application was, however, rejected on 14th Feb. 1975. The present revision No. 754 of 1975 has been filed by the husband against the above order. In this revision it has been contended on behalf of the husband that the order passed by the Court below was without jurisdiction.

(3.) MR. Ravi Kiran Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner in this case contended that since the decree passed on 16th Feb. 1972 was a decree for the annulment of the marriage under Section 12 of the Act, the provisions of S.15 of the Act had no application. The latter Section applied in the case of a dissolution of marriage by divorce and not in the case of an annulment of marriage. Consequently, there was no bar in contracting a second marriage. In support of his contention he relied on two decisions reported in Promod Sharma v. Radha, AIR 1976 Punj and Har 355 and Mohanmurari v. Kusum Kumari (AIR 1965 Madh Pra 194). He also referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Chandra Mohini v. Avinash Prasad (AIR 1967 SC 581) and urged that on the observations made by their Lordships, S.15 had application only in respect of dissolution of marriage by divorce. Lastly, he referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Pasupuleti Venkateswarlu v. Motor and General Traders, AIR 1975 SC 1409 in which it was held that subsequent events have to be noticed by a court of law. He emphasised that since a marriage has taken place with Smt. Pratibha Jain on 19-2-1972 and there have been three issues from the same marriage it was not in the interest of justice that the lives of Smt. Pratibha Jain and the children be put in jeopardy.