SK SALAM Vs. SANT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revisional application by the respondent/petitioner Sk.Salam is directed against an order dt. Mar. 27, 1989 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Tenth Court, Alipore rejecting the petitioner's application under S.34(2) of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) in Matrimonial Suit No. 28 of 1988 (original suit, being Matrimonial Suit No. 757 of 1987).

(2.) It appears that the opposite party No. 1 Sant Singh, father of Sm. Jaginder Kaur instituted the suit under S.24(i) and 25(iii) of the said Act for a decree that the purported marriage between the petitioner and Jaginder Kaur (the opposite party No. 2 herein) alleged to have been contracted under the provisions of the said Act was null and void and for annulment of such marriage by a decree of nullity mainly on the ground that the opposite party No. 2 was a minor being under 18 years of age on the date of the alleged marriage and that her consent to such alleged marriage was obtained by the petitioner by coercion and fraud. The case of the opposite party No. 1 was that his daughter, the opposite party No. 2 was a student of Class IX in Lajpat Hindu High School at Kidderpore. She picked up acquaintance with the petitioner who created sinister influence upon the opposite party No. 2 and dominated her will. The opposite party No. 1 coming to know of this removed her to Jammu. It was also alleged that on July 21, 1987 when the opposite party No. 2 accompanied by a relation was going to Jammu from Calcutta by Train, the petitioner kidnapped her with the help of police. The girl was rescued from the wrongful custody of the petitioner and the police handed her over to the opposite party No. 1. The opposite party No. 1 came to know from his daughter that the petitioner by intimidation, coercion and fraud obtained her signature and forced her to solemnize a purported marriage registered by the Marriage Registrar, 24-Parganas under the Special Marriage Act on July 24, 1987 giving operation to the marriage from June 18, 1987.

(3.) The respondent/petitioner filed a written statement in the suit contending, inter alia, that the opposite party No. 2 was major at the time of marriage. She fell in love with the petitioner and at her insistence the marriage was solemnized. The allegations of fraud and coercion etc. were denied. It was also stated by the respondent/petitioner that a criminal case under S.366 of the Penal Code was started. In course of investigation of that case by the police the opposite party No. 1 did not produce the girl for medical examination to determine her age and ultimately the amused persons including the petitioner were discharged in the criminal case on police report.