RACHHPAL KAUR Vs. JOGINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The wife-appellant claimed divorce from her husband under the provisions of Section 13(2)(iv) of the Hindu Marriage Act on the premises that her marriage was solemnised before she attained the age of 15 years, and she had repudiated the marriage after attaining that age, but before attaining the age of 18 years. Thus, the sole point for consideration before the trial Judge was whether the wife was married before attainment of the age of 15 years and whether after attaining that age she had repudiated the marriage before attaining the age of 18 years. The trial Court calculated the age against her which has given rise to the present appeal.

(2.) At the outset, it must be mentioned that the husband-respondent did not comply with the order of this Court in paying litigation expenses to the wife. Thus, his defence is struck off. That automatically does not mean that the wife is entitled to have her appeal allowed on the fortuitous circumstances of the husband not being in a position to oppose the appeal. The matrimonial Court is not merely a civil Court. It has special jurisdiction and a duty cast on it to satisfy itself and be vigilant before granting any relief. Section 23 of the Hindu Marriage Act is a pointer in that regard. It specifically provides as follows :-

(3.) To prove her point that she was less than 15 years of age at the time of the marriage which took place on 12.8.1982 at village Ranguwal, her father stepped into the witness-box as P.W.1. He stated that Rachhpal Kaur was one of his six children and that he was married 25 to 30 years earlier to 5.12.1984, the day he deposed before the Court. He was positive that his first child was born about 1/1/2 years of marriage and the rest of the children were born after a gap of 2/3 years. He stated that there was only one child elder to Rachhpal Kaur and that too was a daughter Kanwaljit Kaur by name. Rather, he stated that he had five daughters and only one son. He was positive that his daughter was born on 26.2.1969. P.W. 2, an official from the office of the Civil Surgeon, Ludhiana, brought the register of births and left copy, Exhibit P.1, on the record as certificate of birth. According to the original entry relating to Rachhpal Kaur revealed her to be the child of Shanti, her mother. The birth, however, was reported on 5.4.1969 as per the entry. P.W.3 Rachhpal Kaur supported her own cause by further suggesting that girls, who were her class mates when she was a student of primary classes, had not got married till then. However when asked to submit herself for radiological examination, she totally refused to do so. Even otherwise, she did not produce any certificate from the school wherefrom some corroborative material could be obtained that birth certificate, Exhibit P.1, related to her. It is in this state of evidence that the learned trial Judge took the view that when Rachhpal Kaur was the second child of her parents, as deposed to by her father, and he was married 25 years earlier to 1984, then on the day of his deposition, Rachhpal Kaur was about 19 years of age because, as per his statement, the eldest child was born 1-1/2 years of marriage and the following one three years thereafter. On this rough logic, the marriage of Rachhpal Kaur was opined to have been solemnised when she was 17 years of age. It is on this reasoning that the appellant wife was denied the relief.