SANGHAMITRA NARENDRA Vs. PRASANTA KUMAR PRAHARAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING aggrieved by order dated 9.12.1998 passed by the learned District Judge, Bhubaneswar in OS. No. 10/ 1 of 1997, the appellant has filed this First Appeal under Section 39 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 (in short 'the Act').

(2.) THE appellant as petitioner filed a petition under Section 25 of the Act before the learned District Judge, Khurda at Bhubaneswar, for a declaration that the deemed marriage said to have been solemnized on 18.12.1995 is null and void. The petitioner factually stated that while undergoing her Graduation study at Ramadevi Women's College, Bhubaneswar, she met the respondent who introduced himself as a friend of her cousin brother. Sometimes in the early part of 1995, respondent tried to be close with the petitioner -appellant and he gave an impression that he was a Post Graduate student and comes from a good family. Thereafter the respondent somehow by threatening her obtained signatures from the appellant in blank papers. Suddenly on 18.12.1995, while she was proceeding to board a bus, she was physically lifted by the respondent along with his three associates into a Taxi and they forced her to keep mum at the point of a dagger. She was also threatened that unless she acted according to the desire of the respondent, they would black -mail her. They took her to the Office of the Sub -Registrar, Bhubaneswar where she was forced to sign in some papers inside the car without knowing the contents thereof and some time later she was made to appear before the Sub -Registrar and sign papers there at the behest of the respondent and at that time she could know that they had taken her signatures in a marriage form and she was not a free consenting party to the said document which was obtained by the respondent by using coercion. She further stated that her tacit consent might be inferred from the fact of the representation made by the respondent as to his social status, qualification and future prospect. He also told her not to be panic about the registration of the marriage. He assured her that the registration might be cancelled at any time if her parents disproved their marriage. He also promised that he would give proposal to her parents and only after taking their consent he would marry her and till that date, he would not disturb her. During the period from August to December, 1996, the petitioner requested the respondent to cancel the deed of marriage but he misbehaved her on some occasions and finally in the month of December declined to execute the cancellation. Thus, the petitioner decided to break the silence by narrating the whole facts before her parents as to how the marriage certificate was obtained. As the respondent, who was a Matriculate and had no means of sustenance misrepresented and deceived her deliberately and did not take any step to cancel the marriage, she filed the petition before the learned District Judge with the aforesaid prayer.

(3.) IN support of their respective cases, the parties adduced oral as well as documentary evidences. On the above issues and the evidences adduced by the parties, the learned District Judge arrived at the following conclusions; There was a valid marriage between the appellant -petitioner and the respondent -opposite party under the provision of the Special Marriage Act. The certificate was not obtained by fraud or misrepresentation. No fraudulent act was exercised by the respondent in obtaining the consent of marriage from the petitioner and the petitioner was not threatened to put her signature in the blank form. So far as the question of limitation is concerned, the learned District Judge held that the suit is barred by law of limitation as it was to be filed within one year from the date of solemnization of the marriage which took place on 18.12.1995 but the suit was filed on 21st March, 1997. On the above findings, the learned District Judge dismissed the suit.