T SAROJA DAVID Vs. CHRISTIE FRANCIS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition by the wife for declaring her marriage to be null and void on the ground that she was forced to enter into marriage with the respondent. According to the petition and the evidence of the petitioner It appears that the petitioner who was born on 4-3-1933 was about 16 years in 1949 studying in school. Proposal for marriage with the respondent was brought by her parents, but the petitioner resisted the same and expressed her unwillingness to enter into the marriage. Notwithstanding this, her parents set their minds to get through this marriage and on the marriage day in spite of her protest, her father, mother and sister forcibly prepared her for it and wanted to take her to the church. Even there she protested and refused to get into car. But the parents forced her in the car and forced, her out of it at the church. Even at the church, according to the evidence of the petitioner, she refused to sign the register and again the father of the girl forced her to do so. Thereafter, nuptials were arranged. But the petitioner refused to go to the house of the respondent. The next day they tried to arrange the nuptials in the house of the petitioner itself, but there again she was adamant and refused to cohabit. At last probably realising that it is no use to go on with this, they left her alone. Ever since then, she not only changed her Christian name to the present one, Saroja David, but has been trying hard with the church to get her marriage nullified. It appears, being of a Roman Catholic faith, the Church tried for reconciliation. But she has been adamant. But to this, a long time passed. The evidence of the petitioner, who has been cross-examined, clearly establishes that she was forced into the marriage against her wishes when she was still a girl. There is, therefore, no doubt that the marriage which she entered into, has been entered into on account of force.

(2.) The learned Advocate for the respondent has challenged the jurisdiction of this Court to award a decree of nullity of marriage. I do not know under what provision he has urged this point. But now that he has urged, it may be stated that the proviso to Section 19 of the Divorce Act, 1869, in a clear answer to this untenable contention. Section 10 says that a decree us specified in Section 18, namely of nullity of marriage, may be made on any of the four grounds specified therein. Thereafter the following saving has been effected.

(3.) As no fraud or collusion has been established as an impediment to the grant of a decree for nullity of marriage, I accordingly allow the petition and decree nullity of the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent on 18-8-19 In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.