DEVENDRA SHARMA Vs. SANDHYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Invoking appellate jurisdiction of this Court under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955. (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') appellant/plaintiff has filed this appeal challenging the legality, validity and propriety of the judgment and decree dated 8-12-1997 passed by First Add. District Judge, Raisen, in matrimonial case No. 44-A/94.

(2.) The facts which led to filing of this appeal may be shortly narrated thus; appellant filed a petition under Section 12(1)(d) of the Act for declaring the marriage solemnized between him and respondent as void by a decree of nullity on the ground that respondent was at the time of marriage pregnant by some person other than the appellant stating that the marriage between the parties was solemnized as per Hindu rituals on 5-5-1992. After the marriage the respondent stayed at her marital home for few hours and after customary Pooja of goddess without consummating the marriage she returned to her parental home along with her brother. She was brought back to her marital home on 6th July 1992. On that day the parties to the marriage tor the first time came in close contact with each other and slept together. On that day because of some abnormal behaviour of respondent the appellant suspected that respondent is pregnant, therefore, without consummating the marriage, the appellant took the respondent for her medical examination to New Bhopal Hospital, where she was examined by the doctor on 24-7-1992 and it was detected that the respondent was having a pregnancy of 12 weeks.

(3.) The appellant also averted that with the consent of respondent her pregnancy was terminated and thereafter she was advised for bed rest for three weeks. During this rest period, medicines were given to the respondent as per prescription of the doctor. Thereafter the respondent was sent to her parental home at Mhowranipur and since then the respondent was living at her brother's place. The appellant also stated that in the application that at the time of marriage, appellant or his parents were ignorant of the fact of pregnancy. It was also stated that marital intercourse did not take place between the parties after the detection of pregnancy.