SUNITA DEVI Vs. ROSHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed by the petitioner wife against the judgment dated 17.2.1996 passed by the Additional District Judge, dismissing her petition under Section 11 and in the alternative under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

(2.) THE facts in brief are that on 8.1.1996, Smt. Sunita Devi, petitioner filed a petition under Section 11 and in the alternative under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act against the respondent husband Roshan Lal for declaring the marriage between them as null and void by passing a decree of nullity and in the alternative for dissolving the marriage by a decree of divorce. In the petition it was alleged that the marriage between the parties was solemnised on 17.6.1986 and that at the time of the marriage the petitioner wife was a child of the age of 8-9 years and as such the marriage between the parties was nullity and was liable to be declared as null and void. It was alleged that considering the tender age of the petitioner she was not sent to the house of the petitioner husband at the time of marriage and the muklawa ceremony was performed between the parties only about 8 months back and at the time of muklawa ceremony the petitioner was told that the age of the respondent was about 25 years. It was alleged that after the muklawa ceremony the petitioner was sent to the house of the respondent where she lived only for seven days and there she came to know that the respondent was aged about 50 years and the respondent and other persons had wrongly given the age of the respondent as 25 years. It was alleged that it was only on coming to the house of the respondent that the petitioner came to know for the first time that he was aged above 50 years and even from his act and conduct she guessed the age of the respondent being above 50 years. It was alleged that the petitioner had not consented to the aforesaid marriage and even to the muklawa ceremony and had not seen the respondent before she reached the house of the respondent and she had no opportunity to see the respondent at the time of marriage and muklawa and it was only when she reached his house that she came to know of his age and she was astonished to see his age and to see that he was an old man, three times elder to her in age and she came to know that fraud had been played upon her. It was alleged that she had never agreed to the marriage and muklawa ceremony and as such she refused to allow the respondent to cohabit with her. It was alleged that the respondent gave severe beating to the petitioner and had intercourse with her by force and against her will and consent. It was alleged that she lived at the house of the respondent only for seven days and finding her life in danger she came to her parental house and told entire incident to her family members. It was alleged that the respondent had treated her with cruelty and it was not possible for her to live with the respondent.

(3.) REJOINDER was filed. Various issues were framed. Both sides led evidence. After hearing both sides and perusing the record, learned Addl. Distt. Judge, vide judgment and decree dated 17.12.1996 dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner wife holding that the petitioner wife was neither entitled to a declaration that her marriage was void under Section 11 nor she was entitled to a decree of divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, holding that the petitioner wife had failed to prove that she was aged about 8-9 years at the time of her marriage or that the marriage was null and void. Aggrieved against the same, petitioner wife filed the present appeal in this court.