SEEMA KUMARI Vs. PRADEEP KUMAR & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal stands directed against the pronouncement recorded by the learned Addl. District Judge, Shimla, on 24.04.2008 in H.M.A. Petition No. 2-S/3 of 2006 whereby, he declared the marriage inter se the appellant herein, with one Pradeep Kumar respondent No.1 herein to be a nullity. Being aggrieved therefrom, the appellant herein has instituted the instant appeal before this Court, for hers hence begetting its reversal.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the appellant (hereinafter called as the respondent) was married to respondent No.1, Pradeep Kumar, (hereinafter called as the petitioner) on 010th October, 2005, according to the Hindu rites and ceremonies at Kathgarh in District Nawanshahar, Punjab. Respondent No.2 is father of respondent No.1, while respondent No.3 was the middle man in the marriage. After the marriage, the parties to the marriage started living at Ghanahati. On 23rd October, Seema Kumari complained of some pain in abdomen. Smt. Jagiro Devi, the grandmother of the petitioner, who is a midwife, examined her and expressed a view such pain was on account of pregnancy. She further advised that Seema Kumari be taken to hospital for medical examination. Seema Kumari was taken to Deen Dayal Upadhya, Hospital, Shimla, where the doctor found her to be carrying 10 weeks pregnancy. The petitioner was stunned at this revelation as he had married to Seema Kumari only 15 days back. When she was brought back from the hospital, she revealed that she was having illicit relations with one Sabi son of Kashmiri Lal, respondent No.3. A meeting was then held on 26.10.2005. Respondent No.2, his wife and respondent NO.3 visited the house of the petitioner. The incident was narrated to them. Besides the petitioner, his wife, grand mother, many other relatives were present. IN presence of all, Seema Kumari disclosed that she had premarital illicit relations with Sabi and she had conceived through him. Respondent No.2 and his wife stayed back, while other relatives dispersed. They stayed for another two days and during this period tried to pursued the petitioner to keep Seem Kumari, as his wife, to which the petitioner did not agree. Seema Kumari then left the petitioner's house along with her parents on 28.10.2005. The petitioner had not knowledge that Seema Kumari was pregnant by some other persona at the time of marriage. Hence the petition.

(3.) The petition for divorce instituted by the petitioner herein before the learned Additional District Judge, Shimla, stood contested by respondents, by theirs instituting a reply thereto, wherein, the marriage inter se the parties admitted. It ws denied that the petitioner ever complained of any pain in abdomen or that she was examined by grandmother of the petitioner. It was also denied that she was taken to the hospital or that the doctor found that she was pregnant. She also denied that she revealed to the petitioner that she was having sexual relations before marriage with Sabi. She also denied that any Panchayat in the presence of the relatives from both sides was held. She denied that she left the petitioner's house on 26.10.2005. On the other hand, it is pleaded that, Seema Kumari lived in the house of the petitioner till 28.10.2005, on which day she was compelled to leave the house of the petitioner. It was also denied that Seema Kumar was pregnant at the time of marriage. However, it is pleaded that after the marriage, she became pregnant, but the petitioner and his family members got the pregnancy terminated at Ganahatti.