DUSHYANT BHATIA Vs. BABITA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant filed a petition under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") for a decree to declare marriage of the parties null and void on the allegations that the respondent and her father had fraudulently disclosed her age as 33 years being born on 16.11.1972 at Hisar at 10.45 A.M. whereas she was actually born on 16.11.1969. The respondent's father had supplied copy of a PAN card bearing No.ALFRB6341M showing the respondent's date of birth as 16.11.1972. The parties performed marriage on 20.2.2007 at Kurukshetra. The respondent stayed in her matrimonial home at Faridabad till 24.2.2007 and thereafter joined the appellant at Mumbai as he was working there. The behavior of the respondent was not good.

(2.) She refused to cook food, have marital relationship with the appellant, extended threats to implicate him in a case of cruelty, dowry etc. On 8.1.2009, the respondent gave a copy of her passport to the appellant for change of her address from Hisar to Mumbai and the appellant was shocked to read that her date of birth was mentioned as 16.11.1969 instead of the date of birth disclosed to him before marriage. The respondent had disclosed a wrong date of birth as she was older to him by more than three years, thereby committing a fraud upon the appellant. The appellant had got the horoscope of the parties examined as per date of birth of the respondent, as 16.11.1972 and was misled into giving his consent to marriage. If the date of birth of the respondent had been disclosed as 16.11.1969, the horoscopes would not have matched and the appellant would not have agreed to marry with the respondent.

(3.) The respondent wife filed a written reply denying the allegations of the petition. She has averred that the entire documents were supplied to the appellant regarding bio data, date of birth etc. which were thoroughly considered by him and only thereafter, he performed marriage with her. She has controverted the allegations in respect of her misconduct and raised a plea that she was subjected to torture, maltreatment, harassment, humiliation and even beatings during her stay with the appellant at Mumbai.