SACHU SHARMA Vs. AMARDEEP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SACHU Sharma of Kathua (Jammu & Kashmir) had filed a petition under Sections 24 and 25 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 for annulment of the certificate of marriage dated March 17, 2004 issued by the Marriage Officer-cum-Deputy Commissioner, Gurdaspur. The petition was, however, dismissed by learned District Judge and the petitioner has come in appeal.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner she never married Amardeep Singh, they never lived or cohabited together as husband and wife either before or after the registration of the marriage on March 17, 2004. The petitioner never consented to the marriage. She had friendly relationship with Amardeep Singh but she never intended to marry him. She was made to sign some papers in the office of the Marriage Officer, Gurdaspur. Amardeep Singh also threatened her that if she did not sign the papers she would be disfigured and her father would be eliminated. Amardeep Singh also threatened to commit suicide if she did not turn up at the Marriage Officer to sign the papers. On the basis of these pleadings an application for annulment of marriage was filed under the provisions of Sections 24 and 25 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954. Notice was issued to Amardeep Singh but he did not put in appearance despite service and was proceeded against ex parte. Sachu Sharma led ex parte evidence of herself, Reader Sukhdev Singh (PW-1), Pinder Pal Singh (PW-3) and Shamsher Singh (PW-4). However, the learned District Judge did not accept the contentions of the petitioner and dismissed the petition on August 5, 2005.

(3.) ACCORDING to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the statutory and essential formalities of marriage under Special Marriage Act were absent in the present case, therefore, the marriage was void. It was also argued that the learned District Judge has erred in referring to Section 29 of the Special Marriage Act to dismiss the petition because the petition for annulment had been filed before the expiry of one year from the date of issue of the certificate and the petitioner had not applied for permission to present the petition before the expiry of one year the said period.