RABINDRA KUMAR JHA Vs. GOPAL JHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been filed under Sec. 19(1) of the Family Court Act, 1984, read with Sec. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, impugning the judgment and decree dtd. 23/7/2018 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Sheikhpura in Matrimonial Case No. 79 of 2013, whereby and whereunder, learned Principal Judge has dismissed the petition filed by the appellants for annulment of the marriage of appellant No. 2 with respondent No. 3.

(2.) The case of the appellants as per the petition filed before the Family Court is that on 4/5/2013, appellant No. 2 Dharmvir Kumar while returning back after appearing in Class-XI examination was kidnapped by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and some other persons and was taken to Hemda Village in the District of Nawada where the marriage of appellant No. 2 was forcefully solemnized with respondent No. 3 Guriya Kumari, daughter of respondent No. 1. The further case of the appellants is that the marriage was performed without obtaining the valid, legal and free consent of appellants No. 1 and 2 and in this regard Barbigha Police Station Case No. 93 of 2013 has also been registered against respondents on 5/5/2013 under Sec. 364(A) of the Indian Penal Code. The appellants have also filed Matrimonial Case No. 79 of 2013 on 21/12/2013 under Sec. 12(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1953 for annulment of marriage of appellant No. 2 with respondent No. 3 by a degree of nullity as consent of appellant No. 2 was obtained by force and fraud.

(3.) It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the impugned judgment and decree under appeal is bad in law as well as on facts and the same is fit to be set aside. The learned Court below has failed to appreciate that at the time of marriage, both the appellant No. 2 and respondent No. 3 were minors. The date of birth of respondent No. 3 (Ext-5) as per information received through R.T.I from the Headmaster, Utkramit Middle School, Pachwara, shows as 8/2/2002 which suggests that as on the date of marriage, she was minor, whereas the matriculation certificate (Ext-6) of appellant No. 2 shows his date of birth as 15/9/1997 which suggests that as on the date of marriage, the appellant No. 2 was also minor. The learned Principal Judge has failed to appreciate that at as on the date of marriage the bride and groom were minors, therefore, they were not legally competent to enter into a marriage as per provision under Sec. 5(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that the bona fide of the appellants is apparent from the fact that forceful marriage was solemnized on 04. 05.2013 and on 5/5/2013, F.I.R was lodged against the respondents. The statement of the appellant No. 2 was also recorded on 6/5/2013 under Sec. 164 of the Cr.P.C. wherein he has corroborated the allegations as levelled against the respondents in the F.I.R. The appellant No. 2 has also filed the present Matrimonial Case No. 79 of 2013 on 21/12/2013 under Sec. 12(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 for annulment of marriage of appellant No. 2 with respondent No. 3 by a degree of nullity as consent of appellant No. 2 was obtained by force and fraud. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that the respondents have also not brought on record any document in support of their claim that appellants had demanded Rs.2.00 lakhs as dowry nor they have lodged any complaint regarding demand of dowry, which goes to show that a frivolous allegation has been levelled against the appellants to put pressure to compromise the cases filed against the respondents.