KISHORE MANMOHAN SHARMA Vs. JYOTSHANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant in this appeal had filed a petition, being M.J. Petition No. 191 of 1977, in the City Civil Court at Bombay under section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act for a decree of nullity of his marriage with the respondent which had taken place on 14th February, 1975. The ground for annulment of the marriage as prayed for by the appellant was that the marriage has not been consummated owing to the impotence of the respondent. I have already mentioned that the marriage took place on 14th of February, 1975 and the learned trial Judge who heard the petition has mentioned that the petition for the annulment of the marriage was filed ten days after the second anniversary of the marriage. That shows the unfortunate background against which the parties went to trial in the Court below.

(2.) Before I proceed to refer to the rival contentions of the parties, it would be appropriate to narrate the facts which are admitted or which can be taken as sufficiently proved. After their marriage on 14th February, 1975, both the appellant and the respondent went on their honeymoon and returned to Bombay on 10th of March, 1975. The honeymoon was thus for a period of nearly three weeks. Within a few days thereafter, the respondent went back to her place called Nandol in Ahmedabad District where she had to appear for an examination. After the examination was over, she returned to Bombay in June according to her and in July according to the appellant and thereafter stayed with the appellant till 18th of November, 1975. Taking the lesser of the periods, it is seen that she stayed in her husbands house for at least four months after her return to Bombay from her examination.

(3.) The reasons for her leaving the marital house in the month of November 1975 are the subject matter of severe controversy between the parties and will be referred to later in this judgment. There is, however, on record a letter dated 31st of January, 1976 written by the appellant to his father-in-law telling the latter that he had taken the appellants wife one and half months earlier and had not sent any communication in connection with the same thereafter. In this letter the appellant has further mentioned that he would be coming to attend a marriage and at that time he would take the respondent with him. Admittedly thereafter on 5th of February, 1976 the appellant paid a visit to the house of his father-in-law, but returned without his wife. Thereafter again on 23rd of May, 1976 the appellant paid another visit to his father-in-law and even this time he was not successful in persuading his father-in-law to sent his daughter back with the appellant to Bombay. This marks the end of the second phase of the marital life of the appellant and the respondents. The first life of the appellant and the respondent. The first phase would enclose the period from the marriage upto the return from the honeymoon.