SUSHILA MAHENDRA NANAVATI Vs. MAHENDRA MANITAL NANAVATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The parties (petitioner Mahendra and respondent Sushila) were betrothed to each other in June or July 1945 and the marriage between the two took place on 10-3-1947 according to Hindu rites. After a few days of married life, the respondent went to her parent's place at Prantij and stayed there till the third week of April 1947. During her stay at Prantij she informed her husband that she had conceived. The petitioner was to leave for the U. S. A. for business and the resondent returned to Bombay about the end of April, 1947, before the petitioner left for the U. S. A. On or about 27-8-1947, respondent gave birth to a female child and the petitioner learnt about this in London where he was at that time. According to the petitioner, he was shocked when he learnt the news about a child having been born to him 5 months 17 days after marriage and he suspected that the child had been conceived prior to marriage through someone else other than the petitioner. after his return to India in November 1947, he filed a suit for dissolution of marriage in the Shahar nyayadhish Court of the Baroda State on the ground that the marriage was brought about by fraud and that the respondent had concealed from him the fact of her pregnancy from someone else. This suit was resisted by the respondent who contended that the child was born as a result of conception after marriage. The suit was thrown out by the Court at Baroda on the preliminary ground that the petitioner was not domiciled in the Baroda State and, therefore, the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, came into force on 18-5-1955 and the petitioner filed the present petition on 18-4-1956 for decree for nullity of marriage under S. 12 of the Act on the ground that respondent was at the time of marriage, pregnant by some person other than the petitioner. The respondent resisted the petition on the ground that she had submitted to the petitioner's demand for sexual relations before the marriage and as a result of such sexual relations the respondent had conceived through the petitioner. The trial court gave the petitioner a decree for nullity of marriage. The respondent wife appealed. Patel, J. (His Lordship after narrating the facts, proceeded:) Section 12 of the Act so far as is material to the present case is as follows:

(2.) Mr. Vimadalal has argued that in matrimonial suits, the Court must be satisfied that the petitioner has proved his case beyond reasonable doubt. He has relied upon a passage in the treatise by Rayden (7th Edition) at page 203 under the heading "Standard of Proof." The observations are : "Adultery, desertion and cruelty must be proved beyond reasonable doubt when they operate by way of a bar to relief just as much as when they are relied on to found a right to relief". He has also relied on the observations in volume 12, Halsbury's Laws of England at paragraph 445. He has also relied upon the case of Ginesi v. Ginesi, (1948) 1 ALL ER 373. The ratio is:

(3.) The cases referred to above do take the view that there is no distinction to be drawn between the word "satisfied" accompanied by the words "beyond reasonable doubt."