Ranju Sahu vs Tikeshwar Sahu

Since both the appeals are arising out of similar facts, they are being considered and decided by this common order.

Both the appeals are preferred by Smt. Ranju Sahu/appellant.

(i) One appeal i.e. FAM No.104/2019 is against the dismissal of an application under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1955) which was preferred by the appellant, passed in Civil Case No.256-A/13 by the First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur (C.G.) on 23-04-2018.

(ii) In another appeal i.e. FAM No.24/2019, application under Section 9 of the Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights, which was preferred by the respondent-Tikeshwar Sahu was allowed vide order dated 07-01-2019 passed in H.M. No.96-A/2013 by the First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur (C.G.).

The wife/appellant preferred an application under Section 12 of the Act 1955 with allegation that on 24-12-2012 while she was coming back from her village Bhurkoni to Raipur to hostel, she met the respondent-Tikeshwar Sahu in the village and she exceeded to the request made by him and came to Raipur from village Bhurkoni along with him. While coming back from Bhurkoni to Raipur, they met some relatives of Tikeshwar Sahu namely Bhojraj and Ravi Sahu. During such course, some cold drink was offered to her. Thereafter having taken the same, she suffered some uneasiness along with headache. Tikeshwar Sahu/respondent kept the document of appellant in his vehicle and after reaching Raipur, appellant was not feeling well and requested Tikeshwar to leave her at the hostel. Tikeshwar Sahu told that he has to discharge some job at Court and while they reached to the Court, Tikeshwar Sahu got signature of her on some document. When appellant refused to sign, threat was extended that her name would be tarnished and some false cases would be lodged against the family members of appellant thereby forced her to sign the document. Thereafter from Court, they reached to Tatibandh, Arya Samaj Temple Raipur, wherein Tikeshwar Sahu extended threat that he would commit suicide if she does not marry him and forced her to marry at Arya Samaj Temple. Thereafter, took her to Abhanpur and also went to Police Station to inform. Eventually, they reached at village Sarkhi, wherein the uncle of Tikeshwar Sahu called the maternal grand father of appellant. Under those circumstances, she went back along with maternal grand father. Thereafter, certain social meetings were held but the issue could not be resolved. Eventually, an application was filed under Section 12 of the Act, 1955 by the appellant/wife to declare the marriage dated 24-12-2012 to be nullity.

Likewise, Tikeshwar/respondent has filed an application under Section 9 of the Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights, for the reason that despite the marriage she was living separately without any sufficient reason. The Family Court after evaluating the facts and evidence, dismissed the application under Section 12 of the Act, 1955 filed by wife/appellant and allowed the application under Section 9 preferred by the husband/respondent for restitution of conjugal rights.

Being aggrieved by both the orders, the instant two appeals by the wife.

Learned counsel for the appellant/wife submits that evidence on record would show that after administration of some intoxicated drink, she was forced to sign certain blank paper and under the threat, marriage was performed at Arya Samaj Temple at Raipur. Therefore, the marriage being without consent and outcome of fraud is liable to be set aside by the decree of nullity and in consequence application under Section 9 for restitution for conjugal rights is liable to be dismissed inasmuch as the learned Family Court failed to appreciate those facts of undue coercion and fraud.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that according to the statement of the wife/appellant and the evidence of the husband/respondent, it would be evident that both were in relation and both of them voluntarily performed the marriage being major and subsequently such marriage was not accepted by the family members, consequently the application was filed under Section 12 of the Act, 1955. He would further submit that wife/appellant herself has gone to the police station to say that she has performed the marriage and such long series of act when discharged by the wife/appellant would lead to show that she was a consenting party and the marriage was performed with freewill, as a result, both the orders i.e. allowing the application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights preferred by the husband/respondent, 1955 and dismissal of application under Section 12 of the Act, 1955 preferred by the wife/appellant are well merited by the Family Court, do not call for any interference.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders.

The wife in the application under Section 12 of the Act, 1955 pleaded that on 24-12-2012, while she was coming back to Raipur, she met Tikeshwar Sahu, thereafter, at village Bhurkoni, they stopped for sometime, wherein intoxication in the drinks was administered and she was taken initially to the Court to sign certain documents. Thereafter, they reached Arya Samaj Temple Raipur and subsequent thereto went to the house of some relatives of Tikeshwar Sahu.

The evidence which is adduced by the defendant would show a copy of the register of the notary which bears the photographs of both the appellant and respondent, which was executed by her. The husband on the other hand stated that she voluntarily joined the company, thereafter, executed the affidavit and subsequent thereto got married at Arya Samay Temple. The register of notary is filed as Ex.D-1, whereas the Marriage Certificate of Arya Samaj Temple Raipur is filed as Ex.D-2. An affidavit Ex.D-3 is also placed on record which is by Ranju Sahu, wherein she stated that she got married to Tikeshwar Sahu on 24-12-2012 and thereafter, reported the matter to S.H.O. of P.S. Abhanpur about the married. The said report to the police station is filed as Ex.D-4.

In the cross-examination of the Ranju Sahu, she admitted the fact that before 24-12-2012, she had met Tikeshwar Sahu and on 24-12-2012 she went on his motorcycle to Raipur and passed through village Kanhera, Tikari, Danteranga, Khilora and Sejbahar. While confronted with the notary register Ex.D-1 she admitted her signature and photographs. Likewise, the signatures in the marriage certificate, affidavit and the joint report to the S.H.O. Abhanpur (Ex.D-4) was admitted. In defending the application under Section 9 of the Act, 1955, in cross-examination, the wife/appellant admitted the fact that the affidavit was signed before the notary Kavita Jha. Subsequently, volunteered that without reading, she had signed. She admitted the fact that after execution, she went along with Tikeshwar Sahu to Arya Samaj Temple, Raipur, wherein they got married and further volunteered that the marriage was without her consent. She further admitted the fact that after the marriage, they made joint report to the S.H.O. about the marriage.

Perusal of the report to the S.H.O. would show that both Ranju Sahu/appellant/wife and Tikeshwar Sahu/respondent/husband stated that they have got married to each other according to Hindu rituals and certificate of marriage was supported and copy was also filed. Therefore, evaluating of the facts evidence of Ranju Sahu/wife/appellant, probable story as projected of undue influence and fraud appears to be completely improbable which are not supported by any evidence, instead the series of acts would show that while coming from village Bhurkoni to Raipur, she met Tikeshwar Sahu and both of them first went to the Court, they executed the affidavit, thereafter, they went to Arya Samaj Temple and performed the marriage and subsequent thereto they went to Abhanpur and made a joint report to the S.H.O. that they have got married. Consequently, the time which consume in between, series of acts clearly demonstrates the fact that she was in conscious state of mind and was not under the influence of drug so that fraud and undue influence can be attributed. In an application under Section 9 of the Act, 1955, the husband/respondent has stated that without rhyme or sufficient reason, the wife is staying separately, whereas the wife in such proceedings has also come out with the similar defence which is raised in application under Section 12 of the Act, 1955 claiming nullity.

Appreciating the evidence in both the cases, it shows that the grounds which is raised by the wife is improbable and unacceptable on preponderance of probability. The conduct of the parties are relevant and the series of acts which has been attributed by both the appellant and the respondent only leads to show that the appellant and the respondent got married before the Arya Samaj Temple, Raipur and after that, this was also reported to the Police at Abhanpur. There is no plausible explanation on record as to why report to the police under what circumstances was made by the wife/appellant about performance of marriage. The report would show that she admitted the fact of marriage. In the result, we are of the view that the finding arrived at by the learned Family Court on application under Section 12 of the Act, 1955 claiming nullity of the marriage and for the application under Section 9 for restitution of the conjugal rights is well merited, which do not call for any interference.

Accordingly, sans merit, both the appeals are dismissed.