SHAMPA MUKHERJEE Vs. PRANAB MUKHERJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS first appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 30. 09. 2005 passed by the learned additional District Judge, Sixth Court, District South 24 parganas at Alipore in Matrimonial Suit No. 47 of 1996 whereby the learned Additional District Judge decreed the suit against the wife/appellant.

(2.) THE respondent filed the suit for annulling the marriage by a decree of nullity under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 alternatively for judicial separation under Section 10 of the said act. The husband/respondent and the wife/appellant were married according to the Hindu rites and ceremonies on 3rd June, 1996 after negotiation. Thereafter, they lived together. On the night of phoolsajya, that is, on 05. 06. 1996 the husband/respondent discovered that the wife/appellant did not possess breasts like those of a female person and she had a black spot line on her back. On noticing such deformities, he informed his mother of the fact next morning. The marriage was not consummated. The parents of the wife/appellant suppressed such deformities. The appellant is a primary school teacher and she compelled the respondent to take her to Puri immediately after the marriage. The respondent had no relation with his elder brother though they reside in the same house. But the appellant mixed with the family of his elder brother and she became a witness against the husband and his sister in a criminal case under Section 498a of the Indian Penal code. She treated the respondent with cruelty for which it was impossible for the respondent to live with her. So the respondent filed the suit for the reliefs already stated.

(3.) THE appellant contested the suit by filing a written statement denying all the material allegations. She contended that marriage was duly held after negotiation and then it was registered. Immediately after the marriage, the husband arranged for honeymoon at Puri and they stayed at Sonali Hotel in Puri and visited local sights. The respondent is a practising advocate of the High Court, Calcutta and he himself along with other members of his family went to see the wife and after seeing her from a close range, the marriage was settled. Thereafter, the marriage was consummated. The averment of the plaint relating to deformity is not true. Nothing was suppressed. The appellant was examined by medical experts and it was found that the allegation of the respondent with regard to deformities was false. She did not do any act of cruelty at all. So the allegation of fraud and cruelty as stated by the respondent is false. The suit should, therefore, be dismissed.