PARMINDER KUMAR Vs. KIRAN BALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of instant appeal, the appellant -husband has challenged the judgment and decree dated 17.4.2014 passed by the Additional District Judge, Jalandhar, whereby the petition filed by the respondent -wife under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short "the Act") for annulment of marriage, was allowed.

(2.) PUT shortly, the relevant facts necessary for adjudication of the present appeal as narrated therein may be noticed. The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 22.2.2009 as per Hindu religious rites at Jalandhar. The said marriage was got registered on 2.3.2009. The respondent had done M.Sc (Botany) and B.Ed. She had also cleared the IELTS examination with 6.5 band and was preparing for M.Ed. Entrance examination. Before the marriage, it was told to her that the appellant was a computer engineer and was owner and Managing Director of a finance company and had enough funds and means to support the respondent for her study visa to Canada. It was agreed between the parties that the respondent shall not join the company of the appellant and there would be no cohabitation between them until both of them reached Canada either for permanent immigration on the basis of point system or through study visa. The said marriage was solemnized and registered only for the sake of paper work for getting the study visa or permanent residence status of the respondent. The application was moved and address of correspondence was of the appellant and a communication was received from Canadian Embassy regarding refusal which was not shown to the respondent. The respondent applied for study visa for Canada after receiving offer letter from an institution in Canada in 2011. Earlier thereto, in December, 2010, when the father of the respondent approached the appellant for arranging the funds and for getting the study visa, he refused to do the same and even abused her father in filthy language and turned him out from his office. After this, the appellant started demanding Rs. 15 lacs in cash from the respondent and her parents for doing his business and started pressurizing her father to sell his house situated at Abadpura near Model Town, Jalandhar. The respondent got a Government job of Science Mistress and the appellant knowing fully well that she had not got any salary, yet he started asking her to send her whole salary to him. Thereafter, the appellant handed over a copy of the refusal letter from where they came to know that the appellant was engaged by Joshi Enterprises. It also came to their knowledge that the appellant was only a IT Diploma holder and was not a computer engineer and was working as a computer operator in a private firm. The consent of the respondent was obtained by keeping her in dark regarding educational qualification and employment. The said fact was revealed on 5.7.2011. The parties never cohabited as husband and wife. A panchayat was convened where the appellant had agreed to give divorce and demanded Rs. 15 lacs. Accordingly, the respondent filed a petition under Section 12 of the Act for declaring the marriage between the parties as null and void being nullity and in the alternative prayed for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce under Section 13 of the Act on the ground of cruelty. The said petition was contested by the appellant by filing a written statement. Besides raising various preliminary objections, it was pleaded that both the appellant and respondent did the computer course together at the same institution in the same batch and they fell in love in the year 2004 and then on 22.2.2009, the marriage was solemnized, so there was no consummation and cohabitation between the parties till date. He claimed himself to be a computer engineer and that he is owner and Managing Director of the finance company having enough funds and means to support the respondent for her study visa to Canada and was even ready to finance study visa. The other averments made in the petition were denied and a prayer for dismissal of the same was made. From the pleadings of the parties, the issues were framed and the parties led evidence.

(3.) IN support of her case, the respondent besides examining herself as PW3 also examined her aunt Nirmala Devi as PW1 and Bakshi Ram as PW2. All the three witnesses tendered their respective affidavits as Ex.PW1/A, Ex.PW2/A and Ex.PW3/A. On the other, the appellant examined himself as RW1 and tendered his affidavit as Ex.RW1/A and photographs Ex.R1 to Ex.R5.