PRABHAKAR Vs. ANITA ALIAS VATSALA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the unsuccessful petitioner husband in the two Courts below is directed against the dismissal of his petition under Sections 13(1), 12(l)(d) and 10(l)(a) of Hindu Marriage Act.

(2.) The appellant was married to the respondent No. 1 Anita (here- inafter referred to as "the respondent") on June 20, 1967 at Amrawati. At that time the appellant was employed at Achalpur. Soon after the marriage the respondent went to Dhamangaon on June 23, 1967 and was brought to Amravati where the appellant's brother resided on June 27, 1967. According to the appellant though the respondent had come to his brother's house at Amrawati, there was no consummation of the marriage until he joined his duty at Achalpur on July 17, 1967. The appellant learnt from his brother Wamanrao that the respondent Anita had been residing at Dhamangaon since Sept. 5, 1957. She did not return either to Amravati or to Achalpur thereafter and suddenly on April 21, 1968 he received a telegram from his wife's father that she had delivered a boy. The appellant immediately made a report to the police station at Dhamangaon denying the paternity of the child and also sent a registered notice to the father of the respondent. He later filed a petition for divorce on Aug. 28, 1968, but that was dismissed and an appeal preferred from the decision was also dismissed. The appellant was, however, granted leave under Sec. 14 of the Hindu Marriage Act to present another petition for divorce. The appellant thereafter filed the petition from which this appeal arises on Feb. 4, 1972 for a decree declaring the marriage as nullity, for dissolution of the marriage by decree of divorce and alternatively for judicial separation.

(3.) This petition was opposed by the respondent, who denied all the adverse allegations made by the appellant. She contended that she had stayed with the appellant from June 26, 1967 to July 16, 1967 and that she had left after the subsequent stay on Sept. 5, 1967 to the house of her parents. She asserted that she had conceived from the appellant and it was the appellant who made no attempt to take her to his house. She urged that the appellant was not entitled to challenge the paternity of the child and the petition had been presented by making false allegations because the appellant wanted to marry again after obtaining the divorce.