SUNNY DEVI Vs. RAM BABU KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been filed under Sec. 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 impugning the judgment dtd. 18/4/2019, passed by Ld. Principal Judge, Family Court, East Champaran, Motihari in Matrimonial (Divorce) Case No. 250 of 2012, whereby the petition, filed by the Plaintiff-Respondent under Sec. 12(d) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 praying for decree of nullity for annulment of marriage between the parties, has been allowed on contest.

(2.) The case of the Plaintiff-Respondent, as per the petition filed before the Family Court, is that marriage between the parties was solemnized on 19/4/2012 at the Village Malahi Bazar situated in the District East Champaran as per Hindu rites and customs. The parties had last resided together at Sunarpur located in the local jurisdiction of the Family Court, East Champaran, Motihari. It is also averred that there is no petition filed by the Plaintiff-Respondent prior to the present petition and there was no collusion between the parties to present the matrimonial petition. It is further averred that following the marriage, the Defendant-Appellant joined his matrimonial house. It is further averred that soon the Defendant-Appellant began to misbehave with the Plaintiff-Respondent and disliked his company and also refused cohabitation with him. It is further averred that on 30/4/2012, the Plaintiff-Respondent had seen various symptoms of Defendant-Appellant being pregnant. The Defendant-Appellant tried to live lonely with an intent to suppress the sign of pregnancy. It is further averred that the Plaintiff-Respondent, having seen abnormality of physique and behaviour of the Defendant-Appellant, got pregnancy test of the Defendant-Appellant conducted, which was found positive. It is further averred that the Defendant-Appellant herself confessed her guilt and admitted illicit relationship with other person prior to the marriage. It is further averred that on complaint on 7/6/2012, the father and brother of the Defendant-Appellant came Singhiya Hiwan and asked the Plaintiff-Respondent that his suspicion is wrong and they advised him to get the ultrasound test of the Defendant-Appellant conducted. As per advice, ultrasound test of Defendant-Appellant was conducted on 8/6/2012 at HI Tec Scan Centre Janpul Chowk, Motihari and the report of the ultrasound revealed that the age of fetus is eight weeks, meaning thereby that the child was conceived prior to the date of marriage, in spite of the fact that the petitioner never met the respondent before the marriage. It is further averred that after ultrasound report, the brother and father of the Defendant-Appellant took her with them to their home and this time, the Defendant-Appellant took away all her ornaments and other belongings along with herself. Hence, he claims that marriage is voidable and fit to be annulled on the ground of pregnancy since prior to the marriage with a person other than the Plaintiff-Respondent-husband. Hence, the Plaintiff-Respondent prayed for decree of nullity for annulling the marriage between the parties.

(3.) On notice, the Defendant-Appellant appeared before the Family Court and filed her written statement wherein she has denied all the allegations made against her and she has claimed that just next day of the marriage there was physical relationship between the parties, leading to her pregnancy. She has further averred that marriage was solemnized on 19/4/2012 and a female child was born on 22/1/2013, which clearly shows that allegation against the Defendant-Appellant is false. She has further deposed that the child was born in Referal Hospital, Areraj. She has further averred that after ousting by Plaintiff-Respondent, she was living at her Mayake. She has further claimed that on account of his illicit relationship with Sunit Devi, who is the wife of his brother Sugrim Prasad, this baseless allegation has been levelled against her. She has also claimed that after the ultrasound report, the Plaintiff-Respondent came to know that child is female, he pressurized her for abortion, but she was not ready for abortion and hence, false allegation has been levelled against her. It is also alleged that there was illegal demand of dowry and on account of non-fulfillment of the same, she was ousted from the matrimonial house on 12/9/2012 and hence, a complaint was lodged on 20/12/2012. She has further claimed that she had never sexual relationship with anybody prior to the marriage with the Plaintiff-Respondent and she has prayed that the petition is liable to be dismissed with cost.