NISHIT KUMAR BISWAS Vs. ANJALI BISWAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal, by the petitioner Nishit, whom I will call "the husband", appears to have been limited to a consideration of the provision of Section 12(1)(d) of the Hindu Marriage Act. 1955, (for short, the Act) namely, suppresio veri by the respondent Anjali, whom I will call "the wife" who admittedly was a pregnant woman at the date of the marriage -- a pregnancy per allium. The in-jured spouse is the husband, whose application for declaring the marriage a nullity on the ground that he was not responsible for the wife's pregnancy, was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Hooghly, which it is plain, raises a question of peculiar difficulty.

(2.) It was a ceremonial marriage on July 3, 1960. The wife started her labour and was delivered at a hospital, of a normal full term child, weighing more than 6 lbs. on December 16 1960 without unusual difficulty, who is still alive. The notional period of pregnancy from the date of marriage and the usual normal period of human gestation (about 280 days) from the date of first fruitful coition after marriage, is absent in this case. The period between the date of marriage and the date of birth was too short for a mature child to be born Counting both days, it will be 167th day.

(3.) It is one of the misfortunes in the instant case that the wife is not free from pre-nuptial misconduct but the question still remains whether it allows the wife (of such gentle birth) who allows a male person to impregnate her before marriage to retain the marriage bond and the status of the parties intact I do not ignore that it is with jealous care that we should interfere with the obligations of the marriage vow and the grant or the rejection of the declaration prayed for, is a matter of grave import and further that we should exercise our discretion cautiously along with the Act, in the matter of granting or withholding the relief.