Immaneni Vasantha vs Immaneni Srinivasa Prasad

P. Venkatarama Reddi, J.—This appeal u/s 28 of the Hindu '' Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act''), arises out of O.P. No. 29 of 1991 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Nellore. The respondent herein filed the O.P. u/s 12 of the Act praying for annulment of marriage by a decree of nullity on. the ground that the respondent-wife was at the time of marriage pregnant through some other person. The decree was granted by the learned Subordinate Judge by his judgment dated 3.10.1993. Hence this appeal by the wife.

The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent took place on 18.2.1991 at a place near Madras. The respondent is a Government employee working in the Collectorate at Nellore. The case of the respondent-husband is that from the very first day of their marriage, the petitioner was preventing him to have sexual intercourse stating that she was having stomach pain. Both of them went to appellant''s house on 23.2.1991 and thereafter went on tour and returned to Nellore on 26.2.1991. Even during their stay at the parents'' house and thereafter, the respondent submits that she was not allowing consummation of the marriage as she was complaining of continuous abdominal pain. In the deposition, the husband stated that he noticed some abnormality in the stomach of the appellant and questioned her about the same on 19.2.1991. The husband stated in the petition that she was sent to a Doctor through her relation working as a Nurse (P.W. 2) on 7.3.1991. The doctor, by name B. Krishnaveni who was examined as P.W. 3 came to the conclusion on the basis of clinical dignosis that she was pregnant. To confirm her finding, the respondent submits that his wife was sent to Aravind Ultrasound Diagnostic Centre for scanning on 7.3.1991. On the basis of the report, P.W. 3 found that she was having pregnancy of about five months. According to the respondent, the appellant confessed to P.W. 2 that she had sexual relations with some other person before her marriage and requested P.W. 2 not to reveal this matter to others. On 13.3.1991, the respondent states that the appellant left his house along with her brother. It was only thereafter, according to the respondent, he came to know about the actual facts.

The wife denied almost all the facts stated by the respondent. According to her, there was consummation of marriage. She claims to have gone to Tirumala on 7.3.1991 after the 16th day function and returned to Nellore late in the night on that day. The wife alleged that the respondent wanted to extract more money apart from Rs. 50,000/- and 20 sovereigns of gold, which was gifted by her father at the time of marriage. She states that on 23.2.1991, the respondent''s mother and sisters demanded more money and that her father paid further sum of Rs. 15,000/-. Shedenied having left the house on 13.3.1991. According to her, she was living with her husband till 18.3.1991. She alleges that on 10.4.1991, Dr. B. Krishnaveni P.W. 3, came to their house at the instance of P.W. 2 who was her close friend and caused illegal termination of pregnancy. She denied the version of the husband that she was taken to P.W. 3 on 7.3.1991 by P.W. 2 and after examining her, she was sent to the Aravind Ultrasound Diagnostic Centre for scanning.

The Trial Court on the basis of the evidence of P.W. 1 (respondent- husband) coupled with the evidence of P.W. 3 (Dr. B. Krishnaveni) believed the version of the husband and came to the conclusion that the appellant was pregnant by some other person at the time of marriage. The plea that the appellant was subjected to cruelty by demands of additional dowry and by termination of pregnancy was disbelieved. The Trial Court referred to the evidence of R.W. 1 (appellant) who stated that her husband was treating her with affection and that soon after the marriage, they went on tour to various places from 24.2.1991 to 3.3.1991 and during those days they happily led their conjugal life. She even asserted that her husband was never dissatisfied with her. The learned Subordinate Judge came to the conclusion on the basis of the so-called admission of R.W. 1 that there was consummation of marriage, but the respondent-husband was not aware of the pregnancy.

It is the admitted case that the appellant was pregnant by the time the married couple separated in the month of March/April, 1991. According to the appellant, her pregnancy was got terminated by her husband and his maternal aunt, P.W 2, utilising the services of the medical doctor, P.W. 3. In Ex. B-l notice issued on.22.5.1991, she stated that she became pregnant through the respondent and this was not liked by the mother and sisters of the respondent, and therefore, they conspired to get her pregnancy terminated and forced the appellant to consume some tablets and also to take an injection which was said to have been given by P.W. 3. Thereafter, she had abortion. The fact that she went to Tirumala on 7.3.1991 and returned late in the night was not mentioned in the notice. Even in the counter filed in the O.P., no such averment was made. Thus her version that she was out of station on that day on 7.3.1991 cannot be believed, as rightly pointed out by the learned Subordinate Judge. Then, coming to the version of the appellant that her husband''s relations conspired to get her pregnancy terminated with the help of P.W. 3, it seems to be something curious. There is absolutely no reason why the respondent''s mother and sisters should nurse a grouse against the appellant on account of her having become pregnant through the husband. Even according to theappellant, she was living happily with her husband and they were leading conjugal life. If so, we do not think that the husband or the relations of the husband would have entertained the ghastly idea of terminating the pregnancy as found by the Trial Court. There is no satisfactory evidence about any ill-treatment accorded to her after marriage or about the demands for additional dowry. It may be mentioned that the evidence of R.W. 1 does not reveal that any pressure was exerted by the husband or his relations for additional money or gifts. In these circumstances, it is difficult to believe the explanation of the appellant that her pregnancy was caused to be terminated as a result of machinations of her husband or his relations. We are of the view that the Trial Court was fully justified in believing the evidence of P.Ws. l and 3 supported by the scanning report to the effect that within a month after her marriage she was found to be pregnant by five months. The motive suggested to P.W. 3 was that she was close to P.W. 2 who is a Nurse by profession. It would be too much to suggest that a professional doctor would go to the extent of wrecking the marital life by giving false evidence at the instance of her alleged friends, especially when the married couple are strangers to her. The evidence of P.W. 3 was rightly found to be cogent and convincing.

The next question is whether the respondent had marital intercourse willingly since the discovery of the pregnancy of the appellant. The trial Court relied upon some of the statements of the husband, P.W.I in his deposition, which according to the Trial Court suggests that there was consummation of marriage. Having gone through the evidence, we cannot really treat them as admissions of having had sexual intercourse.However,we need not dilate further on this aspect. Even assuming that there was cohabitation after the marriage, the question is whether the respondent did have cohabitation knowing fully well that the wife was pregnant. We do not think that there is any evidence in the case to suggest that the respondent had a definite knowledge of pregnancy of the wife earlier to 7.3.1991. No doubt, he might be having some sort of suspicion that all was not well because even on the very next day of the marriage, he questioned her about the abnormality in her stomach. But, it was only after she was sent to P.W. 3 for examination on 7.3.1991, he would have got confirmed information about the pregnancy. When once it is believed that the appellant was sent to the doctor only on 7.3.1991, we cannot assume that a month before that, the husband would have had definite knowledge about the pregnancy. It is not the case of the appellant that after 7.3.1991, the husband had marital intercourse with her. It is also unlikely that the respondent would have had marital intercourse even after knowing the fact that she was pregnant. If so, he would not have severed his relations with her after the medical reports revealed her pregnancy. We are therefore of the view that Sub- clause (iii) of Clause (b) of Section 12(2) is not attracted in the instant case.

For the aforesaid reasons we affirm the decree of nullity of marriage and dismiss the appeal. No costs.