KANTABAI SANDU NANE Vs. SANDU PARASRAMNANE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Second Appeal is filed by the wife against her husband. The parties were married admittedly on 14-5-l;77. Thereafter, the husband filed a petition in the trial Court for annulment of the marriage on the ground that on the date of the marriage, that is, on 14-5-1977, his wife was pregnant from somebody else other than him. The wife resisted this petition and contended that she was not at all pregnant on the date of the marriage.

(2.) Oral evidence was led in the trial Court and on behalf of the wife, one lady doctor by name, Dr. Mrs. Sushila Dumir was examined. After considering this evidence, the learned trial Judge held that the husband has failed to prove that the wife was pregnant from person other than him at the time of the marriage. He held further that the husband has failed to prove that the wife delivered a chiled on 9th February 1977 and consequently he dismissed this petition. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal in the District Court at Aurangabad. It was Regulat Civil Appeal No. 107 of 1978. The appeal has heard by the learned1 Second Extra Assistant Judge, Aurangabad. The appellate Court disagreed with the findings of the trial Court and while considering the evidence in details, the learned appellate Judge rejected the medical evidence that wals led by the wife and on an appreciation of the other oral evidence on record, the learned appellate Judge came to the conclusion that tbe husband proved that his wife was pregnant at the time of marriage from somebody else and delivered a child. He, therefore, allowed the appeal with costs. Feeling aggrieved by this decision, the wife has preferred this second appeal.

(3.) At the time of admission of this appeal, a substantial question of law was required to be made out and it was urged at that time that the evidence of the lady doctor was not at all given proper weight and, therefore, the value to be attached to the medical evidence on the point of pregnancy and delivery was treated to be a substantial question of law and the appeal was admitted.