ARUP PAL Vs. MONJU MONDAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal at the instance of the petitioner is directed against the judgment and decree passed in Matrimonial suit No. 5 of 1980 by Sri R. N. Patra, 2nd Additional District and Sessions Judge at Alipore, dismissing the suit with costs holding that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was not vitiated by coercion or force under section 12 (1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act and so it could not be annulled.

(2.) The facts of the case in brief is that the petitioner Arup Pal filed an application which was registered as Matrimonial suit No. 5 of 1979 in the Court of the District Judge, Alipore stating, inter alia, that Madhusudan Mondal, father of the respondent and a resident of neighbouring village Mayapur, with the assistance of antisocial people caught petitioner's father from public read and detained him in Madhusudan Mondal's house and forced him to bring the petitioner to his house for effecting his marriage with Madhusudan's daughter, Manju, the respondent. The petitioner's father did not agree to this proposal and he somehow escaped from the house of Madhusudan; that thereafter on 13-8-79 some villagers forcibly took away the petitioner from the house of one Ashok Banerjee of village Jagalballabpur where the petitioner took shelter in the house of the respondent's father and forcibly married the petitioner, who was aged only 18 years then, without his consent and inspite of this opposition with the respondent. It was also stated that the respondent bride belonged to different caste and inspite of his entreaties to release him, the marriage was performed by threat and force and against his consent. It has also been stated the after the marriage the petitioner was compelled to live in the house of respondent's father and to say with the respondence by force. The petitioner was not allowed to go out of the house of the respondent being guarded and watched. After 7 days the petitioner managed to flee away from the house of the respondent's father on the plea of attending the call of nature. To avoid of being caught by the associates of Madhusudan, he left his own residence at Jagatballabpur and he had been staying at various places. It has been stated that there has been no cohabitation and the marriage has not been consummated. The marriage, being solemnized with the consent of the petitioner or of his parents, is void. The petitioner has, therefore, prayed for a decree of nullity annulling the marriage.

(3.) The respondent filed a written statement denying that the petitioner was only 18 years of age but stating that petitioner was aged 24/25 years at the time of marriage. It has been denied that the marriage between the Petitioner and the respondent was performed without consent of the petitioner by force as alleged. It has been stated on the other hand that the parents of both the parties knew that the petitioner and the respondent became very intimate with each other and they used to go to cinema and excurious together. They mixed freely with the knowledge and consent of their respective parents and as a result the respondent was pregnant by the petitioner. When the pregnancy came to an advanced stage the People of the locality approached the parents of the petitioner to give consent for formal marriage of the petitioner and the respondent according to Hindu rites. The parent of the parties readily consented to and the formal marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnised on 13-8-1979 at the house of the respondent's father according to Hindu rites and in the presence of the petitioner's father. Some designing people of the locality and the petitioner's relations began to pass some bad remarks about the marriage. As such the petitioner with the help of his father has filed the instant suit for annulment of the said lawful marriage on false and fraudulent allegations.