BIKKAR SINGH Vs. MOHINDER KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether a singly act of sexual intercourse by a spouse who had been fraudulently inveigled into a marriage by fraud would amount to total condonation, so as to bar a petition for the annulment of such a voidable marriage under S. 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act is the solitary though significant question which falls for determination in this appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent.

(2.) The factual matrix is otherwise brief and further calls for notice only in so far as it is relevant for the aforesaid issue. The appellant-husband was married to the respondent on June 19, 1977. On Oct. 22, 1977, the appellant presented an application under S. 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter called the Act), seeking annulment of the marriage. Therein he alleged that prior to the marriage he and his mother were shown an altogether different girl who was both literate and beautiful and he had consequently given his consent to a marriage with her. However, when the respondent after the marital rites was brought to the husbands home his mother discovered that the girl was a different one from that earlier shown to them According to the petitioner- appellant the respondent was illiterate of ugly looks was aged about 40 years, and of small stature, and had grey hair. Further she also had some artificial teeth and was suffering from venereal disease in a communicable form and had weak eye-sight and certain defect in her eyes. According to the husband the respondent-wife stayed in the house only for the night and was taken away in the morning by her brother. Thereafter the parties never lived as husband and wife.

(3.) The respondent-wife contested the aforesaid application on the ground that there was no fraud played upon the petitioner and sought to allege that she had stayed with the appellant-husband for nearly 20 days. She alleged that thereafter the husband started demanding Rs. 5,000/- and a motor-cycle from her parent and when they could not meet the demand she was turned out of the house. Later her parents approached the appellant-husband but he refused to keep her unless the aforementioned demand was satisfied.