Chattisgarh High Court
Shri Navin Dewangan vs Smt. Swati Dewangan on 15 April, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:17109
SMT NAFR
NIRMALA
RAO
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WP227 No. 332 of 2025
1 - Shri Navin Dewangan S/o Shri Krishna Murari
Dewangan Aged About 35 Years R/o. House No. 16/a,
Saurabh Enclave, Raipur Road, Near High Court,
Bodri, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) Present
Address- (Offc. Add)- Govt. Industrial Training
Institute, In Front Of N.M.D.C. Plant, Nagarnar,
Block- Jagdalpur, District- Bastar (C.G.)
... Petitioner/Defendant
versus
1 - Smt. Swati Dewangan D/o Shri Surendra Kumar
Dewangan Aged About 29 Years R/o. Sharda Jalpan
Grih, Jal Grih Marg, Tikrapara, Tahsil And
District- Raipur (C.G.)
---- Respondent/Plaintiff
--------------------------------------------------
For Petitioner : Shri Vivek Mishra, Advocate. For Respondent/State: Shri Pramod Ramteke, P.L.
--------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 15.04.2025
1. Heard on admission.
-2-
2. The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the learned Second Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, in Case No. 325/ 24 dated 19.2.2025, whereby an application moved under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC has been rejected.
3. The facts of the present case are that the petitioner/husband and the respondent were married on 4.12.2023 according to Hindu rights and rituals. On 5.12.2023, the younger sister of the respondent received a letter which revealed that the petitioner had a relationship with one Rashmi Dewangan and at the relevant time, she was pregnant. The respondent informed this fact to the petitioner and thereafter, filed a suit to declare the marriage void or voidable according to the provisions of Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, on the ground that the husband played fraud by suppressing his earlier relationship with another woman.
4. The petitioner/husband moved an application 3 under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC for rejection of plaint inter alia on the ground that the suit filed by the respondent under Section 12(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act is not maintainable as a marriage cannot be annulled solely on the basis of a past relationship. Learned Family Court vide order dated 19.2.2025 rejected the application on the ground that the dispute can be resolved after recording evidence of the parties.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that according to the provisions of Section 12(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the marriage would be voidable and may be annulled by a decree of nullity if marriage has not been consummated owing to the impotence of the respondent; marriage is in contravention of any of the conditions specified in clause (ii) of Section 5 of the Act, 1955; the consent of the petitioner, or guardian, in marriage of the petitioner, was obtained by force and the respondent was at -4- the time of the marriage pregnant by some person other than the petitioner. He would contend that clause (d) of Section 12(1) of the Act, 1955 is not available to the respondent. He would further contend that the respondent has filed the suit to declare the marriage voidable only on the ground that the petitioner had an affair with a lady and this fact was not disclosed. He would also submit that none of the conditions mentioned under Section 12(1) of the Act, 1955 would attract and therefore, the learned Family Court committed an error of law in rejecting the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC.
6. Heard counsel appearing for the petitioner at length and perused the plaint, the application moved under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC and the order passed by the learned Family Court.
7. A perusal of the plaint would show that the respondent/wife came to know about the relationship of the petitioner with another 5 woman, who was pregnant. It appears that this fact was not disclosed by the petitioner to the respondent prior to marriage. Therefore, the respondent filed a petition under Section 12(1) of the Act, 1955.
8. The application moved by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC is based solely on the ground that the averments made in the plaint do not fulfill the requirements contemplated under Section 12(1) of the Act, 1955. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the matter of Sunder Lal Soni vs. Smt. Namita Jain, reported in AIR 2006 MP 51 held that non- disclosure of age and factum of having major children by the husband at the time of marriage amounts to fraud and suppression of material facts having bearing on the marriage. A marriage founded on such fraud from the very inception is a nullity. The relevant para 17 is reproduced herein below:
"17. From the above said, it is absolutely manifest that the appellant entered into wedlock by practising fraud inasmuch as he had suppressed -6- the material fact which had a bearing on the marriage. Had the respondent wife been aware of the fact that the appellant husband had four major daughters and a major son, she would not have conceived the idea of getting married to the appellant. It is noteworthy to state that marriage is a sacred institution, which cements a bond between two persons. It is a sacrosanct relationship for the purpose of carrying on the light of human race. The basic conception of procreation is at the foundation of marriage. Marriage, saves an individual from the tyranny of sex. It is not an institution meant for personal thirst and wantonness. The purpose of marriage is to establish accord, harmony and suitable balance in the society. No man or woman should play with such a collective institutional principle. No man should harbour the idea that a woman is to be made a life partner by marriage as marriage is a conquest or a victory. Long back, it has been said that consent gives sacrosanctity to the marriage and the same holds true in law. A cynic may propagate that in marriage the husband is the monarch or proclaim that a woman cries before the wedding and the man afterwards, but, the marriage is a socially sensible and respectable institution and has a great human purpose. In the case at hand, the appellant husband has created a concavity in the institutional paradigm by employing his skills in astrology and medicine. In addition, he has suppressed the most material fact of his having five major children. Such a fraud may or may not invite criminal culpability 7 but indubitably satisfies the requirement of Section 12(1)(c) of the Act. It is well settled that fraud vitiates all acts, be it ecclesiastical or mundane. Thus, we have no doubt that the marriage between the appellant and the respondent has been founded on fraud from the very inception and hence, it is bound to founder and accordingly it is a nullity. Ergo, we perceive no infirmity in the judgment of the learned Family Judge, the same being totally presentable and absolutely impeccable."
9. In the present case, though the allegations are yet to be proved, it is averred in the plaint that the petitioner/husband suppressed material facts regarding his relationship with another woman and her pregnancy. Therefore, the contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted at this stage, as these facts can only be ascertained after evidence.
10. Taking into consideration the law laid down by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh and the facts of the present case, no case is made out for interference.
-8-
11. Consequently, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed at the admission stage itself.
Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi