LAWS(HPH)-1962-10-1

NAUMI Vs. NAROTAM

Decided On October 25, 1962
NAUMI Appellant
V/S
NAROTAM Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by Smt. Naumi through her next friend Shri Shib Lal is directed against a decree of the learned Senior Sub-Judge Mahasu, whereby the petition filed by the appellant under Sections 11, 12, 13 and 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act hereinafter to be referred as the Act, was dismissed.

(2.) The allegations on which the petition was founded were these. The petitioner was married to respondent No. 1 on 10th of Magh 2014 B (1958) in accordance with the Praina custom obtaining in the ilaqua. She was minor at the time of the marriage, the consent of her parents had not been obtained to the marriage and that her uncles Sarv Shri Sehaj Ram and Hirda Ram who had given her in marriage were the sons-in-law of Mani Ram the own brother of respondent No. I. At the time of the aforesaid marriage respondent No. 1 had another wife respondent No. 2 living with him and even if she is not proved to be his wife he was having sexual intercourse with her. After her marriage the petitioner lived at the house of respondent No. 1 for about 5 or 6 days only and during that period she did not have any sexual intercourse with him and was treated by him with cruelty. The age of respondent No. 1 was about 60 years and there was great disparity between him and her age.

(3.) The petition was resisted by the respondents. It was denied that repsondent No. 2 was married to respondent No. 1 or that she was having illicit connection with him. It was also denied that she had been treated with cruelty by them. It was alleged that after her marriage the petitioner lived with respondent No. 1 for about a year and thereafter fled away with one Bhup Ram. A report of the incident was made to the Gram. Pan-chayat and an amicable settlement was arrived at and she returned to the house of respondent No. I but 3 or 4 days thereafter went to her mother's place and from there went to the house of Nantia. It was denied that during the time that the petitioner lived with respondent No. I no marital intercourse took place between them.