GOPAL PRASAD Vs. JEEWANLATA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has ben filed by the appellant-husband Mr. Gopal Prasad being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 22.3.1994 of the learned District Judge, Bharatpur in Civil Misc. Petition No. 76/1991 rejecting his application filed u/s. 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1955') for annulment of his marriage with Smt. Jeevanlata which was admittedly solemnised as per Hindu rites on 5.3.1991 at Malipura (Sewar) District Bharatpur.

(2.) The appellant in the petition for annulment of his marriage sought such annulment on the ground that the respondent-Jeewanlata was pregnant by some person other than the appellant at the time of marriage and, therefore, according to Section 12(1 )(d) of the Act of 1955. The marriage was voidable and accordingly a decree for nullity of the said marriage was prayed for.

(3.) The appellant-petitioner the husband contended in his petition that after his marriage with respondent-Jeevanlata on 5.3.1991 his wife came with him to Bharatpur and remained with him for four to five days and thereafter, she went back to her parents house. According to the petitioner husband after she returned back from her parents house after five/six days, she complained of physical weakness and she also started vomiting. Thereupon, the petitioner consulted a Physician who advised them to consult with a Gynecologist. On 7.4.1991 the petitioner accompanied with respondent and consulted with Dr. Mahesh Agarwal who opined that the respondent-Jeevanlata was pregnant of three months and for confirmation, he advised for sonography test. Thereupon, the petitioner arranged for sonography test of the respondent on 8.4.1991 and the report of Dr. Ramesh Singhal of the said sonography revealed that the respondent was pregnant of eleven weeks. Thus, according to the petitioner, the respondent was pregnant at the time of marriage by some other person and that the petitioner had no knowledge of such pregnancy at the time of marriage and further that he did not have any sexual intercourse after discovery of the said pregnancy. Accordingly, the petitioner prayed for annulment of the said marriage before the Court below.