JOHN GEORGE Vs. S A ZARINA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed by the husband against his wife under sec. 19 of the INDIAN DIVORCE ACT, 1869, for a declaration that his marriage with the respondent is null and void.

(2.) The material facts are:- Both the petitioner and respondent profess Christian faith. According to the Christian rites, the petitioner was married to the respondent on 19-5-1971. Before the marriage was consummated, It was revealed that the respondent was pregnant on the date of the marriage. The respondent concealed from the petitioner the fact that she was pregnant on the date of her marriage with the petitioner. If the petitioner knew that the respondent was pregnant on the date of her marriage, he would not have married her. The consent of the petitioner to the marriage was thus obtained by playing fraud on him, by concealing the real facts. The respondent wrote a letter (Ex-A-1) dated 26-5-1971 to the petitioner, wherein she admitted that she was pregnant before the marriage; that, she was a sinner, and that, she was not a fit person to live with the petitioner. There is no collusion or connivance between the petitioner and the respondent in regard to the subject-matter of the petition. The petitioner, accordingly, prayed for a declaration that his marriage with the respondent is null and void.

(3.) In her written statement the respondent admitted her marriage with the petitioner on 19-5-1971. According to her, she and the petitioner were on intimate terms before their marriage and that, the was pregent by the petitioner. The respondent clearly told the petitioner before their marriage that she was pregnant by him. (the petitioner). The petitioner, who was aware of his guilt, quite willingly consented for the marrnge. Even If she was pregnant on the date of her marriage, ir did not gfve the petitioner the right to a declaration that their duly solemnized marriage was null and void, The petitioner forced the respondent to write the said letter dated 26-2-1971 (Ex-A-1). The ultimate alm of the petitioner in filing the present petition is to blackmail the respondent and to refrain her from pursuing her claim for maintenance. Though the petitioner knew the respondent was pregnant on the date of their marriage In May, I97f, he chose to seek his remdy after a lapse of about three years. This shows the mala fides and insincerity of the petitioner. The respondent, accordingly, prayed for the dismissal of the O.P.