LEELA Vs. RAO ANAND SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by Shrimati Leela under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act (No. 25 of 1955 hereinafter to be referred to as the "act") against the judgment of the District Judge, Jaipur City, dated 18-1-1960 dismissing her petition under section 13 of the Act for dissolution of the marriage.

(2.) A few facts about which there is no controversy may be stated first. The respondent No. 1 Dr. Rao Anand Singh is a Hindu and had already been married to shrimati Roopwati Devi according to Hindu rites prior to his marriage with the petitioner-appellant. The petitioner-appellant was a Christian by birth. The appellant and the respondent No. 1 tried in the first instance to get their marriage solemnised according to christian-rites but did not succeed. She, therefore, became a convert to Hinduism on 27-8-1953 and on the same day she was married to the respondent No. 1 according to Hindu rites. The case of the petitioner in her petition then was that at the time of her marriage with the respondent No. I the petitioner did not know that the respondent No. 1 had already married Mst. Roopwati Devi and that she had been alive at the time of the marriage. This fact according to the petitioner, was deliberately concealed by the respondent No. 1 and his relations. The petitioner's version is that she came to know of this fact on 4-8-7956. The petitioner further alleged that since August 1958 the respondent No. 1 had without just cause completely withdrawn the society of the petitioner and that the respondent No. 1 treated the petitioner with such cruelty and constant threats as to cause a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that it would be harmful, injurious and dangerous for the petitioner to live with the respondent No. 1. On these facts, she played for a decree for divorce.

(3.) THE petition was resisted by the respondents. The respondent No. 1 admitted his marriage with Mst. Leela. He also admitted his prior marriage with respondent no. 1 but did not admit the petitioner's allegation that his marriage with respondent No. 2 was kept secret. He also denied the allegations relating to cruelty. He further pleaded that the petition having been filed after delay could not be entertained having regard to the provisions of Section 23 (1) (d ).