S.P. Goyal, J.@mdashThis is an appeal against the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh, dated September 30, 1977, whereby the marriage between the parties was annulled by a decree of nullity.
2. The parties were married at village Burail on April 14, 1976, according to Sikh rites. Six months thereafter, Narinder Singh, the husband, moved this petition u/s 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter called the Act) for annulment of his marriage on the ground that his consent to the marriage with the appellant was obtained by fraud. The case set up by the petitioner at the trial was that Amin Singh uncle of the appellant with whom she was residing, was introduced to his father, Surjit Singh and uncle Sarup Singh through a distant relation of theirs, Kartar Singh, who proposed to get the petitioner married to a girl. With a view to judging the suitability of the girl, the petitioner and his uncle Sarup Singh went to Amin Singh''s place at village Burail and when they were sitting near his saw-mill, a good looking girl was shown to them from a distance. The girl was approved by the petitioner and his uncle and the betrothal ceremony took place 2/3 days thereafter at village Lakhanaur at the house of the father of the petitioner. The marriage was performed 2/2� months thereafter at village Burail and at the time of Anandkaraj the girl observed parda and there was, therefore, no occasion for the petitioner to know if the girl with whom the Anandkaraj was performed was the same girl which was approved by him or not. The marriage party along with girl reached his village in the evening and when the bride was seen by the women folk, there was a murmuring that the girl has a squint in her eye and seven teeth were missing. The petitioner had the occasion to see the girl next morning at about 5 A.M. when he discovered that she was not the girl which he had approved for marriage. Consequently, he did not consumate the marriage and conveyed this fact to his uncle. Respectable of the village were then called including Ujjagar Singh, Sarpanch and Smt. Tej Kaur, lady Panch and on their advice the girl was sent back with her brother.
3. The appellant before me contested the petition and her case at the trial was that two years prior to the marriage, she resided with her uncle Amin Singh at Chandigarh in Sector 30 and father and uncle of the petitioner were on visiting terms with her uncle. The petitioner was learning type-writing and shorthand at Chandigarh in those days and on his way back he had been visiting the house of Amin Singh and meeting her. Matrimonial alliance between the parties was finalised by her uncle with Sarup Singh uncle of the petitioner and betrothal ceremony took place at village Lakhnaur at the house of the petitioner''s father on May 5, 1974. Six months thereafter, she along with her uncle shifted their residence to village Burail where on account of the fall of a roof she received a number of injuries and lost her four teeth. The other two teeth which had become shaky were extracted by Dr. Chaudhry, Dental Surgeon working in Sector 20, Chandigarh. The marriage was performed after two years of the betrothal ceremony in the broad daylight at 10 A.M. when the boy and his family members had full opportunity to see her but no objection was raised by them at that time. After marriage she stayed with the petitioner for 3/4 months and during that period, they had been cohabiting with each other and the marriage consummated. Break in their relation, according to her, was caused by her inability to meet the demands of the boy and his family to bring more golden ornaments for him and his father.
4. The two issues contested between the parties at the trial were as to whether the consent of the petitioner to the marriage was obtained by fraud, and if so, whether the petitioner had lived with the respondent after the fraud had been discovered. The petitioner in support of his case, gave his own statement and examined 6 other persons including Ujjagar Singh, Sarpanch P.W. 2, Smt. Tej Kaur, Lady Panch, P.W. 23, and Sarup Singh P.W. 6. He also took photographs, Exhibits P 1 and P 2 at the time of the performance of the marriage ceremony. Evidence produced by the respondent consisted of her own statement and the statements of 8 witnesses who supported her version detailed above. The trial Court after appreciating evidence and taking into consideration the attending circumstances answered both the issues in favour of the petitioner and annulled the marriage which led to the filing of the present appeal by the wife.
5. At the outset the learned counsel for the appellant relying on
6. It was next contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the respondent has only pleaded fraud prior to the betrothal ceremony and no plea having been raised that his consent has been secured by fraud at the time of its celebration, the marriage between the parties could not be annunlled. Reliance for this proposition was placed on
Consent will be said to have been obtained by fraud and still be a ground for the annulment of marriage not only if the consent is obtained by practising fraud at the time of the solemnisation of the marriage, but even if it was obtained at an earlier stage.
7. Whatever may have been the position prior to the amendment of clause (c) of Section 12 (1) of the Act, there can be no manner of doubt that after the amendment the marriage can be annulled under the amended Section if the consent of the petitioner was obtained by fraud, as to the nature of the ceremony or as to the nature of material facts or circumstances concerning the respondent. By substituting the words ''by fraud, by the words ''or by fraud as to the nature of the ceremony or as to the nature of material facts or circumstances'', the scope of clause (c) has been enlarged to a great extent and there can be no manner of doubt that marriage can now be annulled under clause (c) of Section 12(1), even if the consent was obtained by fraud as to the nature J of material fasts concerning the respondent (now appellant) much prior to the date of solemnization of the marriage.
8. To challenge the finding on merits the learned counsel relied on certain circumstances, which were not taken notice of by the trial Court while appreciating the evidence, namely, that the petition was filed after 6 months of the solemnization of the marriage that no notice was served prior to the filing of the petition nor any criminal prosecution was lodged and that it cannot be believed that the boy did not discover the fraud till 24 hours of the solemnization of the marriage. The circumstances pointed out by the learned counsel even if taken together, in my view, do not furnish any ground to interfere with the appreciation of the evidence by the trial Court, because as held in Parkash Devi v. Vidya Sagar (1961) 63 P.L.R. 904, the finding of the first Court should be reversed only when the evidence taken as a whole cannot reasonably justify the conclusion arrived at or when there is an element of improbability arising from proved circumstances which in the opinion of the Court, outweigh such finding. That apart the case set up by the appellant during her statement was quite different from the one pleaded by her in her written statement and it was mainly for this reason that the trial Court rejected her version, and accepted the plea of the respondent. I, therefore, do not find any scope to interfere with the finding of the trial Court that the consent of the petitioner, to the marriage, was obtained by fraud and the same is hereby confirmed.
9. As regards the plea of the appellant that the respondent had continued to live with her for more than two months after he had discovered the alleged fraud the appellant relied on the statements of the same witnesses R.W. 1 to R.W. 8, which were produced to prove the consent of the petitioners to the marriage. The Court discussed this issue alongwith the issue of fraud and nagatived the plea, as the witnesses produced by her have been found to be unreliable. Apart from the reasons recorded by the trial Court, which need not be repeated here, the plea of the appellant has also to be rejected on the ground of non production of the medical evidence which was the best evidence to prove that the marriage between the parties had been consummated.
10. In the result I find no substance in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed, but without any order as to costs.
