SURESH CHANDRA ALIAS TULU NAYAK Vs. SHANTILATA BHOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendant in the trial Court is the appellant in this Second Appeal filed against a decision of the Addl. District Judge, Bhubaneswar dated 11-3-2004 in R.F.A. No. 15/41 of 2002/03 confirming a decision of the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Bhubaneswar dated 22-10-2003 in C.S. No. 78/2003 (T.S. No. 169/97).

(2.) The present respondent as plaintiff had filed the civil suit praying for declaration that the marriage certificate issued by the Marriage Officer on 25-6-1994 in favour of herself and defendant was null and void and inoperative in the eye of law. In the plaint she alleged that the defendant was her maternal uncle's son. In the year 1994 he persuaded her to sign some printed forms convincing her that the same were applications to enter into Government service and believing him in good faith she had signed those documents without knowing the contents thereof. Towards the end of June, 1994 the defendant informed her that in connection with Government service she has applied for, she had to swear an affidavit and present the same before the Government Officers personally, and deceptively took her to the Registration Office. She further alleged that on 16-12-1996 her father received a registered envelope in which xerox copy of a Marriage Registration Certificate and an Oriya type written letter without any signature were there. Only thereafter the plaintiff could know that the defendant had committed fraud and without her knowledge and consent got the paper works done for registration of her marriage with him. After obtaining the certified copy of the Marriage Registration Certificate she filed the suit.

(3.) After receiving notice the defendant appeared and filed his written statement contending that the plaintiff was a major being eighteen years old at the time of marriage and both of them though related to each other and their relationship was within the prohibited degree for marriage, the custom governing them permitted such marriage as per provisions of Section 4 of the Special Marriage Act. He further averred that the plaintiff out of her own free will and love towards him had agreed for the marriage and had appeared before the Marriage Officer. The allegation of any fraud or misrepresentation was denied.