SONIA KUMAR Vs. HARSHIT KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SONIA Kumar w/o Dr. Harshit Kumar has filed the present petition under section 18 and 19 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869, and has sought a decree of nullity of marriage between the parties on the allegations that the marriage between the parties was solemnised on 20.11.1998 at Ludhiana, as per Christian rites. The petitioner has alleged that the respondent at the time of the marriage and presentation of the petition was impotent and, therefore, he was incapacitated to consummate the marriage. The respondent is also guilty of cruelty towards the petitioner as his behaviour was indifferent right from the very day of the marriage, as he used to get irritated over small issues. Moreover, the respondent had no healthy physical contact with the petitioner which amounts to mental torture and is an act of cruelty. The parents of the petitioner; namely Parvez Wilson and Sheela Wilson, came to know about the maltreatment and misbehaviour of the respondent towards the petitioner from her after about a week of the solemnisation of the marriage. Thereafter, the petitioner came to her parents' house along with her father on 30.11.1998 and she told everything about the respondent to her parents. Respondent also called the petitioner on telephone about two days thereafter and said that he did not want to keep the petitioner as his wife and he would like a divorce. The petitioner has further alleged that the respondent had mal-treated her twice during her stay with him and his behaviour was found to be violent and unbecoming of a good person. She apprehends danger to her life and it is impossible for her to live with the respondent as husband and wife. It was also alleged by the petitioner that at the time of the marriage, the respondent disclosed his age as 38 years whereas actually he was 41 years old. He was born in the year 1957. In para 8-A of the petition, it is alleged by the petitioner that the respondent at the time of the marriage with the petitioner was a Hindu by religion and it was not disclosed to her at the time of solemnisation of the marriage. Respondent had obtained the consent of the petitioner by fraud without disclosing that he was Hindu. The parents of the petitioner had spent Rs. 50,000/- at the time of the marriage and all the dowry articles are in the custody of the respondent. With these allegations, the petitioner has sought a decree for nullity of the marriage.

(2.) NOTICE of the petition was given to the respondent. Earlier, he gave his appearance in this Court through his counsel Shri Sunil Chadha. Vide order dated 19.7.1998, the High Court gave directions to the parties to appear before the Superintendent, P.G.I., Chandigarh, for examination before the Medical Board to be constituted by the Superintendent of the Institute.

(3.) THE respondent has denied the allegations of the petitioner. Rather, he made the allegations against the petitioner that she had intercourse with another person before the marriage and that she was a lady of loose character.