GANPATRAJ Vs. USHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE judgment and decree of the District Judge, Jodhpur, dated 13 -3 -74 has given rise to this appeal by Ganpat Raj whose petition for annulling the marriage with the respondent has been dismissed.

(2.) THE appellant Ganpat Raj filed a petition under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act on 22.8.73, against. Smt. Usha with the allegation that the parties were married at Jodbpur on 3 -7 -72. After the marriage the respondent came to the petitioner's home only twice and that too under the pressure of her father. But she did not allow the marriage to be consumated According to the petitioner there could be no consumation of the marriage until the date of the petition. He accordingly prayed for the annulment of the marriage on the ground that Smt. Usha was impotent on the date of the marriage and continued to be so until the date of the petition. Smt. Usha did not put in appearance respite of notice. The case proceeded exparte. In support of his contention Ganpat Raj examined himself as P.W. 1Gulab Mehra his sister -in -law, wife of his brother Narpat Raj as P.W. 2, Ganpat Jain as P.W. 3 and Mohan Raj Mehta, his father as P.W. 4. The learned Judge after having discussed the evidence and the relevant vant law on the point held that the marriage had not been consumated. But the refusal on the part of Smt. Usha to submit herself to sexual intercourse was due to obstinacy. The learned Judge refused to inter that she was in any way incapciated or psychologically impotent. He dismissed the petition of Ganpat Raj.

(3.) AFTER having carefully gone through the evidence, it is no doubt borne out, that there have been no consumption of marriage. As a matter of fact Ganpat Raj admitted that on the first night after the marriage Smt. Usha refused to share his bed and she told him bluntly that her marriage has been performed against her wish Second time she visited her husband's house, P.W. 1 stated she fled away from the house after jumping from the window. Those days Ganpat Raj was in service at (sic). According to his deposition his people tried to persuade Smt. Usha to accept Ganpat Raj as her husband as a fait accompli but she was not prepared to accept him as her husband. Smt. Gulab Mehta is the brother's wife of Ganpatraj She is also related ro Smt. Usha. She stated that she was at her father's place which was the, same as the 'Nanihal' of Smt. Usha, Soon after the marriage she found one day Smt. Usha at her Nanihal where Smt. Gulab Mehta was also staying on that occasion. She also stated that Sent. Usha's marriage was done against her wish and she was not prepared to reconcile herself to the marriage. Ganpat Jain P.W. 3 is cousin of the petitioner. According to him he talked over the matter with the brothers of Smt. Usha but his efforts failed. Mohan Raj Mehta P.W. 4 deposed on the same lines that at once soon after the marriage she refused to accept his son as her husband. Within next 15 days she visited his house a second time but after a while she ran away from the house after jumping through the window. He also admitted that Smt. Usha's grievance was that her marriage has been brought about by coercion from her father. He also talked over the matter with the father of Smt Usha and her father persuaded Smt. Usha for sometime but ultimately he expressed his helplessness in the matter. From this evidence the best that can be inferred is that the marriage between the parties was performed against the wish of Smt. Usha, and after the marriage she was not able to reconcile herself to accept Ganpat Raj as her husband. This is also borne out that on two occasions when she was at her father in law's place she told in a straight forward manner that she was not repared to accept Ganpatraj as her husband and she refused to submit herself to sexual intercourse. The evidence does not disclose that how long the efforts continued. This petition was filed after more than one year of the marriage. None of these witnesses stated that Smt Usha was given some time to Calm down and the efforts to persuade her to come to her husband's house continued. From this evidence it is difficult to conclude that it was on account of impotency physical or psychological that she refused the consummation of the marriage. On the face of it this was a deliberate refusal as the was not interested in the marriage with the petitioner and it was brought about against her wish.