TAPAS SINGHA Vs. MITAIL PAUL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Court has heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties and has also considered the materials on record. The facts of the case, very briefly, are as follows:

(2.) The respondent in the present appeal had filed the Matrimonial Suit No. 343 of 2002 in the Court of the learned District Judge, Barasat, North 24-Parganas which was subsequently re-numbered as Matrimonial Suit No. 121 of 2009 and it was placed for hearing before the learned Additional District Judge, 1st Court, Barasat, North 24-Parganas. The said suit was filed by the respondent against the appellant praying inter alia for a decree of nullity of marriage between the parties and the marriage be dissolved accordingly. In the petition for annulment of marriage which was filed under section 25(i)(iii) of the Special Marriage Act, 1954, the respondent had alleged that at the time when the respondent was about 20 years of age, she had met the appellant and at that point of time the respondent was only a college student. She has also alleged in her petition that the appellant had developed some kind of intimacy with the respondent and the respondent was impressed by the way the appellant had portrayed himself before the respondent inasmuch as the appellant had stated to the respondent that the appellant is a big businessman holding different types of business situated at Raniganj, Asansole and that the appellant had four trucks, a private car and his own dwelling house. It was the case of the respondent that the respondent became impressed upon such disclosures made by the appellant and she fell in love with the appellant. It was the case of the respondent that the appellant took undue advantage of such weakness of the respondent and took the respondent to some place and compelled the respondent to put some signatures on blank forms which later on turned out to be steps taken for registration of a marriage under the Special Marriage Act, 1954. It was the case of the respondent that the respondent had no consent to such marriage but the appellant induced the respondent to believe certain things which the appellant knew was false and, therefore, the appellant had committed fraud on the respondent. Even with regard to the alleged educational qualification of the appellant, the respondent had alleged that the appellant had made false representations. It further appears from the petition filed by the respondent for annulment of marriage that the father of the respondent at the material point of time was an officer of the C.I.S.F. and he stood in the way of the appellant's father operating an illegal trafficking of coal business and, thus, the appellant intended to put the respondent's father in trouble and according to the respondent the appellant thus committed such coercion and fraud on the respondent and somehow managed to obtain the marriage certificate.

(3.) The appellant had contested the said Matrimonial Suit by filing a written statement and additional written statement as the plaint was also amended. The appellant has denied the material allegations made in the plaint but it appears from the additional written statement that the appellant insisted in making a statement that the appellant is the owner of more than one trucks and the appellant is also the owner of a private car and the trucks were used for carrying coal. The appellant has also stated in his pleadings that the appellant is a confirmed businessman having coal supply business. According to the appellant the respondent had given valid consent to the said marriage which purportedly took place on 18.4.2001. The appellant prayed that the suit should be dismissed. It may be mentioned that the appellant had also taken a point that the learned Trial Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit as the date on which the suit was filed i.e. 21.3.2002 the amendment to the section 31 with regard to the wife's right of filing a suit in the territorial jurisdiction of the Court in which jurisdiction she happens to reside did not come into force, that is to say, section 31(1)(iiia).