URMILA KUMARI Vs. BALDEV RAJ MIGLANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This first appeal is directed against the order and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, Ist Class, Patiala, annulling the marriage solemnised between the parties on 8th October, 1962, according to Hindu rites. Baldev Raj Miglani filed an application under Section 12 of the Hindu Act for annulment of his marriage with Smt. Urmila Kumari alleging that he co-habited with his wife four or five times after the marriage, that on 30th October, 1962, he learnt that she was already pRegulation nt by some other person and that he was ignorant of this fact at the time of the marriage. Smt. Urmila Kumari controverted the above allegations and maintained that she never had sexual intercourse with any other person. The trial Judge framed the following issues :-

(2.) The learned counsel for the appellant urged that the trial Judge had not properly appreciated the evidence led by the parties before him which largely consists of the statements of medical Experts. He was right in his contention for the reasons which I shall state hereinafter. Lady Dr. Daljit Dhillon Women Assistant Surgeon Class II, A.W. 1 examined Smt. Urmila Kumar on 30th October, 1962 and found her pRegulation nt. In her opinion the duration of pRegulation ncy was 2-1/2 months. she had not specified any reason for coming to the conclusion that the pRegulation ncy was 2-/12 months' old while issuing the certificate Exhibit A-1. She again examined Smt. Urmila Kumari on 8th December, 1962 and issued certificate R.1 where she said that the pRegulation ncy was 16 weeks' advance. It was admitted by the witness that she had not specialised in Gynaeocology. In the Court she described certain signs which she is said to have noticed during the examination of Smt. Urmila Kumari which led her to come to the conclusion that the pRegulation ncy was 16 weeks old but none of those symptoms were noted by her in R-1 or A-1. She in cross-examination admitted -

(3.) Dr. R.S. Verma, in charge X-ray Department, Rajindra Hospital, R.W. 2 admitted that approximate age of pRegulation ncy could be judged by taking X-rays but those were to be taken in a special manner and from a particular distance and by exposing certain parts. In his view if X-ray is taken in the ordinary way for judging the pRegulation ncy it would only be said therefrom whether the foetus is matured or not from the general appearance but the age of pRegulation ncy cannot be exactly worked out. The witness went on to say that the report encircled 'B' on A.3 did not indicate the age of pRegulation ncy as it was not possible to do so. Dr. Ram Das Aggarwal another Radiologist R.W. 3 said that it would not be possible to give the age of pRegulation ncy from X-ray plate A.W. 6/1. The same was the testimony of the previous Radiologist R.W. 2. Such divergent opinions of the doctors as have been noted above could not be a sure indication of the fact that Smt. Urmila Kumari got pRegulation nt before her husband visited her.