AJIT SINGH Vs. SMT. NITU SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 14.07.2014 passed by learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna in Matrimonial Case No. 396 of 2008, whereby he has rejected the application of the appellant for annulment of marriage under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

(2.) The short facts of the case are that the parties were married on 27.04.2008 at Danapur Cantt., Patna where the parents of the appellant reside. At the time of marriage, the appellant was aged about 31 years and the respondent was aged about 26 years. After solemnization of the marriage, a reception was held on 30.04.2008 at Danapur Cantt. and Puja of 'Kuldevi' was also held on that date. It is claimed by the appellant that the marriage was never consummated between the parties and the respondent went back to her parent's house in the evening of 01.05.2008. A week later on 08.05.2008, the appellant was scheduled to return to his place of posting at Mumbai where he was employed in a public sector bank and for which he had reservation for New Delhi for that date and further from New Delhi to Mumbai on 11.05.2008, but however, the respondent did not accompany him and he had to proceed to Mumbai by himself. Soon thereafter the respondent came to his parent's house on 16.05.2008 when some abnormal growth in her body was detected but not much notice was taken. The reservation was again made for 02.06.2008 for the respondent along with the appellant's parents to go to Mumbai. However, on 30.05.2008 the respondent complained of severe pain in her abdomen and started bleeding and refused to permit anybody to attend or to go to the doctor. Since bleeding increased, the appellant's parents informed the respondent's parents who came to Danapur and all the persons went to Dr. Indu Bala Lal, a Gynecologist, and after examination, the doctor diagnosed that the respondent was carrying a pregnancy of six weeks and accordingly advised cleaning of uterus and prescribed medicines and injections. The appellant's parents went to purchase medicines but in the meanwhile, the respondent left the clinic with her parents.

(3.) Mr. S.S. Dwivedi, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, submits that the entire episode amounted to fraud as the respondent had been found carrying a pregnancy of 40 days within 34 days of the marriage, more so when the marriage was never consummated between the parties. It is therefore apparent that the respondent had become pregnant by some person other than the appellant. Despite summons issued on the appellant's application, the said Dr. Indu Bala Lal did not appear before the Court as a witness. Thereafter the appellant filed an application for issuance of warrant of arrest against Dr. Indu Bala Lal to enable recording of her deposition to prove the prescription given by her and the result of her examination. No order, however, was passed by the Court and hence neither any warrant of arrest was issued nor the doctor was examined and instead the appellant was forced to proceed in absence of the evidence of Dr. Indu Bala Lal.