RAM GOPAL CHOUDHARY Vs. SANTOSH ALIAS SHANTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil miscellaneous appeal, under Section 19 of the Family Court Act, 1984, is directed by the appellant husband against the judgment and decree, dated 22.3.2003 of the learned Family Court No. 2, Jaipur, in Civil Case No. 197/2001. Under the impugned judgment and decree the learned Family Court rejected the petition filed by the appellant husband under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, 'the Act, 1955') for dissolution of the marriage with the respondent wife solemnized on 21st of April, 1977 at village Hasampura.

(2.) THE respondent wife did not put appearance before the learned Family Court No. 2, Jaipur after filing of the written statement. The Family Court No. 2, Jaipur passed order on 5th of February, 2001 to proceed ex parte against her and decided the matter ex parte on 22.3.2003.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the appellant husband produced on the record the certificate of the Secondary School Examination, 1987 of the appellant husband, which is taken on the record. As per the certificate the date of birth of the appellant husband is 8th of July, 1971. The respondent wife, in the reply to the petition filed by the appellant husband, did not dispute the fact of their marriage solemnized on 21st of April, 1977. Thus on 21.4.1977 the appellant husband was aged plus six years. The decree of dissolution of the marriage of the appellant husband with the respondent wife was prayed for by the appellant husband before the Family Court No. 2, Jaipur on the ground of adultery as well as on the ground that at the time of their marriage both the appellant husband and respondent wife were minor. It is further pleaded that 'Gauna' ceremony was not solemnized. After attaining the age of majority, the appellant husband repudiated the marriage. The marriage was not consumed. The appellant husband appeared in the witness box and made a categorical statement on oath that the marriage of the appellant husband with the respondent wife was solemnized when both were minor; after marriage 'Gauna' ceremony was not solemnized; the marriage had not been consumed and on attaining the majority the same was repudiated. The respondent wife, though in the reply to the petition, came up with the case that on attaining the age of majority 'Gauna' ceremony was performed and both remained as husband and wife and the parties consumed the marriage but she allowed the proceedings to go ex parte and she did not appear in the witness box. Keeping in view the pleadings and evidence of the appellant husband we are of the opinion that the learned Family Court has committed an error not to grant the relief as prayed for by the appellant husband. It is true that the father of the appellant husband has stated that he went to the house of the father of the respondent wife along with five to seven persons to bring her to the matrimonial home but her parents did not send her to the matrimonial home; not only this they misbehaved and abused them. Only on the basis of this statement of the father of the appellant husband the learned Family Court No. 2, Jaipur has not believed the case of the appellant husband, which is wholly unjustified. Even if the statement of the father of the appellant husband is taken to be not correct on its face value, it nowhere demolishes the case of the appellant husband with which he has come before the Court. It is not the case where the father of the appellant husband went to the house of the father of the respondent wife on the desire or direction of the appellant husband. The appellant husband has proved by cogent and satisfactory evidence that his marriage was solemnized with the respondent wife when both were minor. After the marriage, 'Gauna' ceremony was not solemnized, the marriage was not consumed, and on attaining the age of majority he repudiated the same. In the presence of this evidence we are satisfied that it is a fit case for grant of relief as prayed for by the appellant husband.