Sanjiv Kumar Mahato vs Rekha Mahato

Heard learned counsel for the appellant.

Appellant is the husband aggrieved by the dismissal of Title Matrimonial Suit No.115/2013 instituted under Section 12(1)(c) of the Hindu

Marriage Act, 1955 wherein he alleged that consent of the petitioner for marriage was obtained by force. Case of the parties is briefly stated

hereunder :-

The appellant-husband solemnized marriage with the respondent on 23rd December 2012 at Gaurinath Dham, Purulia (West Bengal) and on

21st January 2013 the marriage was registered before the Special Marriage Officer, Purulia (West Bengal). Thereafter they started living at

Khutadih, Pindrajora, Bokaro at the house of the petitioner. Petitioner contended that the marriage was procured under pressure and coercion and

is voidable. He also contended that the respondent is a distant relative of the petitioner-appellant. Therefore, the suit was instituted for dissolution

of marriage under Section 12(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and under Section 25(iii) of the Special Marriage Act, 1954.

The respondent through her written statement accepted the marriage with the appellant and further stated that they were on love affair prior to it.

Petitioner had established physical relationship with her on promise of marriage. When he denied to marry after some months, an F.I.R. was

lodged being Purulia (M) P.S. Case No.214/2012 under Sections 376 and 417 I.P.C. During course of the proceeding before the learned

Sessions Judge, Purulia in an anticipatory bail petition the petitioner-husband sworn an affidavit that he would lead a happy marital life with the

respondent. Sessions Trial Case No.135/2013 was pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-I, Purulia. She further

contended that the petitioner and his family members demanded Rs.1 lakh as dowry and pressurized her to withdraw criminal case, otherwise she

would not be entertained in their house. When she refused to withdraw the case, the suit has been filed on the concocted grounds. Their marriage

has been duly consummated but the petitioner is trying to marry another person.

Learned Family Court framed five issues as under :-

(1) Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form ?

(2) Whether there is any valid cause of action for filing this suit ?

(3) Whether the consent of the petitioner for the marriage was obtained by force and under threat that if he would not marry with respondent he

will be put behind bars in a false criminal case ?

(4) Whether the respondent is own ""Bhanji"" of the petitioner in relation and hence they are within the degrees of prohibited relationship ?

(5) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get relief as prayed for ?

Six witnesses were examined by the petitioner husband i.e. P.W.1 Sanjiv Kumar Mahato (petitioner himself), P.W.2 Tara pada Mahato (father

of the petitioner), P.W.3 Rajiv Kumar Mahto, P.W.4 Anima Mahto (sister of the petitioner), P.W.5 Padma Lochan Mahato and P.W.6 Ganesh

Chandra Mahato. Besides that, he adduced the following documentary evidence :-

(i) Exbt.1 is the certified copy of F.I.R. of Purulia (M) P.S. Case No.214/12.

(ii) Exbt.2 is the certified copy of charge sheet of Purulia (M) P.S. Case No.214/12.

(iii) Mark-X, xerox copy of appointment letter of petitioner in United Bank of India.

(iv) Mark-X/1 to X/2, xerox copy of certified copy of Marriage Certificate dated 21.1.2013 issued by Special Marriage Officer, Purulia (W.B.).

(v) Mark-X/3, photo copy of medical examination report of respondent Rekha Devi (Mahato) in Purulia (M) P.S. Case No.214/12.

(vi) Mark-X/4, Xerox copy of medical examination report of plaintiff Sanjiv Kumar Mahato in Purulia (M) P.S. Case No.214/12.

(vii) Mark-X/5 to X/6, xerox copy of statement of Rekha Mahato recorded by Magistrate in Purulia (M) P.S. Case No.214/12.

On the part of the respondent following four witnesses were examined :- R.W.1 Charubala Devi, R.W.2 Adalat Mahato (father of the

respondent), R.W.3 Ankur Mahato and R.W.4 Rekha Mahato (respondent herself). No documentary evidence was adduced on her behalf.

Learned Family Court took up Issue No.3 first and came to a considered finding that the petitioner had failed to prove that his consent was

procured under force and undue influence. The material discussions on this issue reveals that the petitioner during the subsistence of the criminal

case under Section 376 of the I.P.C. agreed to solemnize marriage with the respondent and lead a conjugal life whereafter anticipatory bail was

granted to him. The marriage was solemnized thereafter and duly registered as well. The petitioner never raised any objection of the alleged threat

or use of force in procuring his consent before any forum. No credible evidence was brought on record to either dislodge the allegation made in the

criminal case which however was still subjudice. The criminal case during investigation was found to be true and accordingly a charge sheet has

also been submitted. The petitioner had, in the aforesaid circumstances, agreed to marry the respondent. That is how the learned Family Court

disbelieved the contention of the petitioner husband that the marriage was obtained by fraud and threat. The other Issue No.4 relating to marriage

in a prohibited degree of relationship was also not found established on facts. Learned Family Court found that sister of the petitioner, i.e. Anima

Mahato though married to Jagannath Mahato, resident of Podlara, was not in close relation with the respondent Rekha Mahato who is the

daughter of one Adalat Mahato of the same village. The allegation of the petitioner that the respondent is his ''Bhanji'' i.e. daughter of Adalat

Mahato was not established. Learned Family Court therefore did not believe the allegation that the marriage was in prohibited degree of

relationship between the parties. The petitioner husband had also not sought any relief on this ground that the marriage was void ab-initio under

Section 11 of the Act being in contravention of Section 5(iv) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant and also gone through the impugned judgment and the materials on

record. Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to dislodge the findings of the learned Family Court on any of these grounds. In the

absence of any proof of force or coercion applied, the appellant has completely failed to bring his case within the contour of Section 12(1)(c) of

the Act of 1955 for annulment of the marriage as a voidable volition and undertaking, solemnized the marriage in the background of their physical

relationship and love affair before marriage as also the institution of a criminal case by the respondent under Sections 376 and 417 of the I.P.C.

against the appellant-husband. The allegations relating to marriage in prohibited degree of relationship also were not established.

On consideration of the totality of the facts and circumstances, we do not find any merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed.