ARUN KUMAR Vs. RIMPY SOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Arun Kumar-husband has filed this appeal challenging judgment and decree dated 14.8.2015 passed by the Court of District Judge, Amritsar whereby a petition under Section 12 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') filed by respondent-wife has been accepted and the marriage between the parties has been declared as nullity.

(2.) The case set up by the respondent-wife, as per her petition under Section 12 of the Act, is that marriage between the parties was solemnized at Amritsar on 15.12.2012 as per Hindu rites and traditions but the marriage was not consummated on account of physical disability of impotence of the appellanthusband. The respondent-wife averred that she is highly qualified, being M.A. in English and M.A. in Journalism and Mass Communication. When her parents were looking for a good match for her, they came across an advertisement at 'Shaadi.com' given by the respondent representing himself to be an unmarried person residing in Australia. Pursuant to conversation between the parties, the marriage ceremony took place on 15.12.2012. The respondent-wife asserted that the appellant was not at all interested in consummating the marriage and upon being asked about the reason for the same, he informed that he was undergoing some kind of medication and due to which he was not going to consummate the marriage at that point of time. The respondent averred that on 30.12.2012, the appellant went to Australia leaving her back at Amritsar. Subsequently, the respondent also went to Australia through family sponsored visitor visa on 29.7.2013 but she found that she was not welcome there as mother of the appellant started quarrelling with her. Even in Australia, the marriage was not consummated. The appellant's mother told the respondent that her son was not fit for consummating the marriage and when the respondent confronted the appellant about the said fact, the appellant started assaulting and beating the respondent and she was kept confined in four walls of the room and was threatened that in case she disclosed about the reality to anyone, she would be murdered. The respondent further alleged therein that all her money and gold ornaments were taken by appellant and his mother forcibly. The respondent-wife asserted that she was ultimately left at the police station by the appellant saying that it was not his responsibility to keep her and ultimately it was with great difficulty, with the help of her friend's husband that she managed to come back to India. The respondent, thus, prayed for dissolution of her marriage by passing decree of nullity on ground of impotency of the appellant-husband.

(3.) The appellant-husband in reply to the petition under Section 12 of the Act denied all the material averments made therein and took a stand that the sole motive and purpose of filing the petition was to extort money from the appellant and that the appellant was a victim of fraud and cheating. The appellant further took a stand that in fact, it was later that he came to know that the respondent has married him to come to Australia as she was having a boyfriend in Melbourne whom she could not marry because her boyfriend's family was not consenting for the same. The appellant-husband while admitting the factum of marriage categorically denied the allegations of being impotent. The appellant-husband also took a stand that in fact the respondentwife did not allow him to have any sexual relationship with her on one pretext or the other. It has also been stated therein that he had opened a joint account with the respondent in Amritsar and had deposited an amount of Rs. 50,000/-, Rs. 20,000/- and Rs. 35,000/- in the same, out of which the respondent withdrew Rs. 65,000/- before coming to Australia and that he had also deposited 8,000 Australian Dollars as 'security bond' for sponsoring visitor visa for his wife. It is further asserted by the appellant that since the respondent was having a boyfriend in Melbourne (Australia), therefore, immediately after reaching Australia, she made a complaint of domestic violence to the police authorities on 3.8.2013, barely after four days of her arrival. The appellant, thus, prayed for dismissal of the petition.