ANINDITA DUTTA MAJUMDAR Vs. SANTANU RANJAN DUTTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On scrutiny of the impugned judgment and decree dtd. 4/8/2015, we find that the court below has proceeded on a wrong premise of law. This premise of law is stated in paragraph 10 of the impugned judgment and decree as follows: -

(2.) It is quite plain on a reading of Sec. 25(I) of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 that one of the grounds for declaring a marriage voidable is that the marriage is not consummated owing to the wilfull refusal of the respondent to consummate the marriage. There has to be refusal and such refusal should be wilful. If, for example, the petitioner is not ready for the act of consummation, there would be no question of any refusal, let alone wilful, by the respondent because the act cannot take place, even by consent. Therefore, this point of law is very fine and has to be analysed by the court very carefully. Any finding of facts based on this legal premise has to be made after a very careful appraisal of evidence. When the learned Judge of the court below had proceeded on this wrong legal premise, he could not have appreciated the facts and the evidence in the connect perspective.

(3.) The impugned judgment and decree dtd. 4/8/2015 is set aside.