C S RANGABHATTAR Vs. C CHOODAMANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This C.M.A. arises out of the judgment and decree dt. 6-5-1989 in OP. No. 44 of 1986 on the file of the IInd Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The petitioner-husband filed the Original Petition under Section 12(1) (d) of the Hindu Marriage Act, hereinafter referred to as the "Act", for annulling the marriage between him and the respondent-wife with the following allegations:-- The petitioner married one Rajyalakshmi and got two songs and one daughter through her. The said Rajyalakshmi died in the month of August, 1984 leaving the three minor children in distress and there was no one in the family to look after the minor children. The petitioner has also submitted that he had undergone vasectomy operation on.

(2.) 3-11-1983 after the birth of the third child through the deceased wife Rajyalakshmi. It seems that he was persuaded by his parents that he should remarry as they were unable to look after the minor children. Thereafter, one Shri N. Ch. Raghavacharyulu, who is friend of the father of the petitioner, arranged the respondents match for the petitioner representing that the respondent belongs to a respectable family and she is the sixth daughter in the row of children of her parents. The petitioner and his father were taken to Yerraboyinapally village of Khammam District on 25-5-1985. After disclosing all the facts about himself, the petitioner and his father expressed their desire for the marriage of the respondent with the petitioner. The respondents parents were apprised of the facts that the petitioners wife died leaving three minor children and that he had undergone vasectomy operation and thereupon they have consented to give their sixth daughter, i.e., the respondent, in marriage to the petitioner. She was then aged about 19 years. The marriage was fixed and was solemnized on 31-5-1985 in accordance with the customs and rites of the Hindu religion. The grievance of the petitioner is that the fact that at the time of the marriage the respondent was pregnant by four or five months having had intimacy with some other person was concealed by the respondent and her parents and that they did not reveal the said fact to the petitioner. After the marriage the respondent was brought to Hyderabad and she began living with the petitioner and pretended that she was not pregnant. She used to cover up her lapses by observing three days menstruation period every month making the petitioner and others to believe that she was not pregnant. The petitioner states there was, therefore, no reason to suspect that the respondent was pregnant at an advanced stage. When the petitioner questioned respondent about the swelling of lower part of the abdomen and hardness thereof, the respondent-wife explained that she had undergone an operation for the removal of abcess which has caused the swelling and hardness. The petitioner believed the story of the wife as he found marks of operation and stitches on the lower part of the abdomen. The respondent wife expressed her desire in the third or fourth week of October, 1985 to go to her parents house to stay there for a month for taking rest but the petitioner insisted that she should stay with him and need not go to her parents House. On 7-11-1985 at about 1.00 a.m. in the night the respondent started complaining of abdominal pains. The petitioner in good faith thinking that there was something wrong in her stomach took her to Niloufer hospital for treatment. The respondent was examined in the hospital and an X. Ray was taken and it was found that she was having advanced stage of pregnancy and the pains occurring to her were in fact the labour pains of delivery. After sometime the respondent delivered a full fledged male child weighing about six pounds and the petitioner was shocked to learn that the wife had delivered the child within about five months after the solemnization of the marriage with him on 31-5-1985. The petitioner questioned his wife about the humiliation brought about by her by delivering the child within a short period of five months after the marriage. Then the wife gave a letter admitting the lapses on her part, and the deception played by her and her parents. Thereafter the wife went away to her parents' house along with her mother and sister. The petitioner got issued a registered notice through his lawyer on 23-11-1985 narrating all the facts and expressing his intention to get the marriage annulled. No reply was given on behalf of the respondents to the said notice. Under these circumstances, the petitioner submits that his marriage with the respondent is a nullity in the eye of law as she was pregnant at the time of the marriage through some other person and therefore prays for a decree of dissolution of marriage under Section 12(l)(d) of the Act.

(3.) In the counter filed on behalf of the wife all the facts alleged by the husband are denied in toto. The case of the respondent-wife is that the husband married the respondent after the fact of pregnancy was made known to him. He was fully aware of the fact that she was pregnant as it was brought to his notice. It is also stated that the primary object of the petitioner in entering into a second marriage was to have some one to look after the minor children. The petitioner and the respondent lived as husband and wife from 31-5-1985 to 7-11-1985 when the respondent delivered a male child after she was taken to Niloufer hospital by the petitioner, who had booked a special ward for her in the hospital. According to the version of the respondent-wife, the petitioner sent a letter to her parents that she had delivered a male child in the hospital and there was no one to look after her comforts and requested her parents to come and take her to their house. The wife further alleges that the petitioner paid the bills in the hospital. It is also alleged by the respondent in the counter that the petitioner through his uncle, who is a legal practitioner in the High Court, arranged for the adoption of the child and an adoption deed was drafted and one of the junior counsel, attached to his uncle's wife, also signed as a witness in the adoption deed. The adoption deed was registered with the Notary and his uncle has taken a letter from her for the said purpose of adoption. The wife further alleges that it must be kept in mind that the petitioner is a father of three grown up children who is well aware of the world. He is a qualified officer drawing more than Rs. 5,000/- per month. The father of the petitioner is a doctor and another uncle is a legal practitioner in the High Court. The wife further states that the petitioner at one time took her to a Lady Doctor for abortion but since it was at a belated stage of pregnancy such a course of action was ruled out by the doctor. It is only when a male child was born he changed his opinion and wanted his uncle to arrange for adoption of the boy. The wife further reiterates that the petitioner had married the respondent with full knowledge of the pregnancy of the respondent as he wanted to have a second wife to look after the three minor children born through his first wife. In those circumstances the respondent wife pleads that there is no question of granting a decree declaring her marriage with the petitioner as a nullity.