Karnataka High Court
Sri Bestha Rajashekhar vs Smt M Umadevi on 7 March, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:10541-DB
MFA No. 8418/2017
C/W MFA No. 2965/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.8418/2017 (SMA)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2965/2021 (SMA)
IN MFA NO.8418/2017
BETWEEN:
SRI BESTHA RAJASEKHAR
S/O. B. NARAYANASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
R/AT. D.NO.5-3-178,
D.R. COLONY, HINDUPUR TOWN,
ANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT,
ANDRAPRADESH PIN - 515 201. ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI A. SHIVARAMA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SMT. M. UMA DEVI,
D/O. MUNISHAMAPPA,
Digitally signed
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
by SHYAMALA
R/AT. GATE WOMAN,
Location: HIGH ARAVINDA NAGAR,
COURT OF RAILWAY QUARTERS NO.8,
KARNATAKA
GOWRIBIDANUR TOWN,
CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT
PIN - 561 210. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI SOMASEKHARA K.H., ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:10541-DB
MFA No. 8418/2017
C/W MFA No. 2965/2021
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 39 OF SPECIAL MARRIAGE ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT
AND DECREE DATED 20.07.2017 PASSED IN M.C. NO.2/2015 ON THE
FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE CHIKKABALLAPUR,
DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 25(III) OF
SPECIAL MARRIAGE ACT.
IN MFA NO.2965/2021
BETWEEN:
SRI. BESTHA RAJASHEKHAR
S/O. B. NARAYANASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
R/A. DOOR NO. 5-3-178,
D.R. COLONY, HINDUPUR TOWN,
ANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT,
ANDRAPRADESH. ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI SHIVARAMA A., ADVOCATE)
AND:
SMT. M. UMADEVI,
W/O. BESTHA RAJASHEKHAR
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
R/A. NO. RAILWAY QUARTERS
ARAVIND NAGAR,
GOWRIBIDANUR TOWN. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI SOMASEKHARA K.H., ADVOCATE)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 39 OF SPECIAL MARRIAGE ACT READ WITH SECTION 19(1)
OF FAMILY COURT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
23.03.2021 PASSED IN M.C. NO.45/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE
PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, CHIKKABALLAPUR, ALLOWING
THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 22 OF THE SPECIAL
MARRIAGE ACT, 1954.
THESE MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEALS COMING ON FOR
FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, K.S.HEMALEKHA J., DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:10541-DB
MFA No. 8418/2017
C/W MFA No. 2965/2021
JUDGMENT
The instant appeals are preferred by the husband. MFA.No.8418/2017 is against the impugned order dated 20.07.2017 in MC.No.2/2015 on the file of the Prl. District Judge at Chikkaballapur, whereby, the petition filed by the husband under Section 25(iii) of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as "the SM Act" for short) was dismissed.
2. MFA.No.2965/2021 is preferred against the impugned order dated 23.03.2021 in MC.No.45/2021 on the file of the Prl. Judge Family Court, Chikkaballapur, whereby, the petition filed by the wife under Section 22 of the SM Act seeking restitution of conjugal rights was allowed.
3. The parties are referred to as "husband" and "wife" for the sake of convenience.
4. Factual matrix in MC.No.2/2015, the petition by the husband under Section 25(iii) of the SM Act seeking decree of nullity of marriage solemnized on 17.10.2015 on the ground that the consent to marriage was obtained by coercion/fraud, husband was pressurised to subscribe his signature in the -4- NC: 2024:KHC:10541-DB MFA No. 8418/2017 C/W MFA No. 2965/2021 marriage register, there is no marriage as it was not out of free will by the husband.
5. The other ground raised by the husband for nullity of marriage is that the Registrar of Marriage did not follow the procedure under Section 6(3) of the SM Act and prayed for grant of decree of nullity of marriage.
6. Wife filed counter statement, inter alia, contending that the marriage was solemnized on 17.10.2015 before the Sub-registrar, there was no force or coercion as contended by the petitioner and the prayer sought for nullity of marriage to be rejected. It is averred that they were residing together as husband and wife after the registration of marriage, but all of a sudden, for the reasons best known to the husband, he deserted her. The wife specifically averred that she was always ready to join the matrimonial home.
7. The trial Court on the basis of the pleadings framed necessary issues, which read as follows:
"1) Whether the petitioner proves that there was no valid consent for the marriage that was -5- NC: 2024:KHC:10541-DB MFA No. 8418/2017 C/W MFA No. 2965/2021 solemnized between the petitioner and respondent on 17.10.2015?
2) Whether the petitioner proves that the marriage was not solemnized between himself and the respondent by following procedure laid down under section 6(iii) of Special Marriage Act?
3) Whether the petitioner proves that the marriage of himself and the respondent was not solemnized in accordance with the provisions of the Special Marriage Act and therefore, it is null and void?
4) Whether the petitioner is entitled for decree of nullity of marriage dated 17.10.2015?
5) To what order?"
8. In order to substantiate his claim, the appellant-
husband examined himself as PW.1 and three witnesses as PWs.2 to 4 and got marked documents at Exs.P-1 to P-14. On the other hand, respondent-wife examined herself as RW.1 and got marked documents at Exs.D-1 to D-20. The said documents Exs.D-1 to D-20 were marked during the cross- examination of the appellant-husband. -6-
NC: 2024:KHC:10541-DB MFA No. 8418/2017 C/W MFA No. 2965/2021
9. The trial Court, on the basis of the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence arrived at a conclusion that:
(i) Petitioner-husband has failed to prove that there was no valid consent for the marriage that was solemnized between the petitioner and respondent on 17.10.2015.
(ii) Petitioner-husband failed to prove the marriage solemnized on 17.10.2015 and registered before the Sub-registrar was without following the procedure laid down under Section 6(3) of the SM Act.
(iii) Petitioner-husband failed to prove that the marriage was solemnized contrary to the provisions of the SM Act and it is null and void.
10. By the judgment, the trial Court dismissed the petition filed by the husband under Section 25(iii) of the SM Act.
11. Factual matrix in MC.No.45/2021:
(a) After the dismissal of MC.No2/2015 seeking for nullity of marriage by the husband, the wife preferred petition under Section 22 of the SM Act, seeking restitution of conjugal -7- NC: 2024:KHC:10541-DB MFA No. 8418/2017 C/W MFA No. 2965/2021 rights specifically contending that the marriage was solemnized and registered before the Sub-registrar, the husband without any reasonable cause has left her company and has failed to perform his obligation.
(b) The husband filed objections, inter alia, denying all the contentions, urging the similar ground that was raised in MC.No.2/2015 about the threat, coercion, duress and fraud being played upon the husband while solemnization of the marriage on 17.10.2015.
(c) The trial Court on the basis of the pleadings, formulated the following points:
"1) Whether the petitioner has proved that the respondent has deserted her without any just and reasonable cause, therefore she is entitled for decree as prayed for?
2) What order or decree?"
(d) The wife examined herself as PW.1 and got marked documents at Exs.P-1 to P-9. On the other hand, husband examined himself as RW.1 and another witness as RW.2. -8-
NC: 2024:KHC:10541-DB MFA No. 8418/2017 C/W MFA No. 2965/2021
(e) The trial Court on the basis of the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence held that the petitioner-wife has proved that the respondent-husband has deserted her without any just and reasonable cause and by the impugned order, allowed the petition under Section 22 and directed the respondent-husband to join the petitioner to lead marital life.
12. Aggrieved by the judgment and order in both the petitions, the husband is before this Court in the present appeals.
13. Heard Sri A.Shivarama, learned counsel for the appellant - husband, and Sri Somashekara K.H., learned counsel appearing for the respondent - wife.
14. Learned counsel for the appellant would urge on the following grounds:
(a) The marriage solemnized on 17.10.2015 before the Sub-registrar is by force, the signature obtained on the marriage certificate by coercion, that the husband was not having any intention to marry.-9-
NC: 2024:KHC:10541-DB MFA No. 8418/2017 C/W MFA No. 2965/2021
(b) The consent of the husband has been obtained by coercion, fraud, misrepresentation and the same falls under Section 25(iii) of the SM Act.
(c) The Registrar of marriage has failed to follow the procedure in registering the marriage and has violated Section 6(3) of the Act.
(d) The marriage solemnized is due to coercion as per Section 25(iii) of the SM Act, the marriage solemnized shall be voidable and be annulled by a decree of nullity.
(e) The restitution sought by the wife and the decree in her favour is without considering the fact that the marriage was not solemnized as per the requirement and it is voidable and the appellant cannot be forced to lead a marital life with the respondent-wife.
(f) After nearly lapse of eight years of separation, there is irretrievable breakdown of marriage, thus, the order directing restitution of conjugal rights and dismissal of the petition filed by the husband under Section 25(iii) of the SM Act is unsustainable and sought to allow the appeals.
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:10541-DB MFA No. 8418/2017 C/W MFA No. 2965/2021
15. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent would justify the order of the trial Courts in MC.No.2/2015 as well as No.45/2021 and would contend that the Courts below on rightly considering the oral and documentary evidence arrived at a just conclusion that the husband has failed to prove that the marriage solemnized is voidable and has to be annulled and directed for restitution of conjugal rights. Learned counsel would contend that the registration of marriage on 17.10.2015 was by following the proper procedure and upon registration of the marriage, the husband cannot contend that it has been obtained by coercion or undue influence and sought for dismissal of the appeals.
16. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the points that arise for our consideration are:
(i) Whether the registration of marriage on
17.10.2015 and the certificate of marriage issued would be conclusive evidence of the fact of marriage and whether the husband can contend that the marriage is contrary to Section 6(3) of the SM Act?
(ii) Whether the husband has proved that as per Section 25(iii) of the SM Act, the marriage
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:10541-DB MFA No. 8418/2017 C/W MFA No. 2965/2021 solemnized on 17.10.2015 is voidable and to be annulled by a decree of nullity?
(iii) Whether the judgment and decree of the Courts below warrants interference by this Court?
Point No.(i):
17. Relevant provisions of the SM Act for consideration point No.(i) are Sections 4, 5, 6, 7, 12 and 13, which read as under:
"4. Conditions relating to solemnization of special marriages.―Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force relating to the solemnization of marriages, a marriage between any two persons may be solemnized under this Act, if at the time of the marriage the following conditions are fulfilled, namely:―
(a) neither party has a spouse living;
(b) neither party―
(i) is incapable of giving a valid consent to
it in consequence of unsoundness of
mind; or
(ii) though capable of giving a valid
consent, has been suffering from
mental disorder of such a kind or to
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:10541-DB
MFA No. 8418/2017
C/W MFA No. 2965/2021
such an extent as to be unfit for
marriage and the procreation of
children; or
(iii) has been subject to recurrent attacks of
insanity;
(c) the male has completed the age of twenty-
one years and the female the age of eighteen years; 5
(d) the parties are not within the degrees of prohibited relationship:
Provided that where a custom governing at least one of the parties permits of a marriage between them, such marriage may be solemnized, notwithstanding that they are within the degrees of prohibited relationship; and;
(e) where the marriage is solemnized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, both parties are citizens of India domiciled in the territories to which this Act extends.
Explanation.―In this section, "custom", in relation to a person belonging to any tribe, community, group or family, means any rule which the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf as applicable
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:10541-DB MFA No. 8418/2017 C/W MFA No. 2965/2021 to members of that tribe, community, group or family:
Provided that no such notification shall be issued in relation to the members of any tribe, community, group or family, unless the State Government is satisfied--
(i) that such rule has been continuously and uniformly observed for a long time among those members;
(ii) that such rule is certain and not unreasonable or opposed to public policy; and
(iii) that such rule, if applicable only to a family, has not been discontinued by the family.
5. Notice of intended marriage.―When a marriage is intended to be solemnized under this Act, the parties to the marriage shall give notice thereof in writing in the form specified in the Second Schedule to the Marriage Officer of the district in which at least one of the parties to the marriage has resided for a period of not less than thirty days immediately preceding the date on which such notice is given.
6. Marriage Notice Book and publication.―(1) The Marriage Officer shall keep all notices given under section 5 with the records of
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC:10541-DB MFA No. 8418/2017 C/W MFA No. 2965/2021 his office and shall also forthwith enter a true copy of every such notice in a book prescribed for that purpose, to be called the Marriage Notice Book, and such book shall be open for inspection at all reasonable times, without fee, by any person desirous of inspecting the same.
(2) The Marriage Officer shall cause every such notice to be published by affixing a copy thereof to some conspicuous place in his office.
(3) Where either of the parties to an intended marriage is not permanently residing within the local limits of the district of the Marriage Officer to whom the notice has been given under section 5, the Marriage Officer shall also cause a copy of such notice to be transmitted to the Marriage Officer of the district within whose limits such party is permanently residing, and that Marriage Officer shall thereupon cause a copy thereof to be affixed to some conspicuous place in his office.
7. Objection to marriage.―(1) Any person may, before the expiration of thirty days from the date on which any such notice has been published under sub-section (2) of section 6, object to the marriage on the ground
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC:10541-DB MFA No. 8418/2017 C/W MFA No. 2965/2021 that it would contravene one or more of the conditions specified in section 4.
(2) After the expiration of thirty days from the date on which notice of an intended marriage has been published under sub-section (2) of section 6, the marriage may be solemnized, unless it has been previously objected to under sub-section (1).
(3) The nature of the objection shall be recorded in writing by the Marriage Officer in the Marriage Notice Book, be read over and explained if necessary, to the person making the objection and shall be signed by him or on his behalf.
*****
12. Place and form of solemnization.― (1) The marriage may be solemnized at the office of the Marriage Officer, or at such other place within a reasonable distance therefrom as the parties may desire, and upon such conditions and the payment of such additional fees as may be prescribed.
(2) The marriage may be solemnized in any form which the parties may choose to adopt:
Provided that it shall not be complete and binding on the parties unless each party says to
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC:10541-DB MFA No. 8418/2017 C/W MFA No. 2965/2021 the other in the presence of the Marriage Officer and the three witnesses and in any language understood by the parties,―"I, (A), take the (B), to be my lawful wife (or husband)".
13. Certificate of marriage.―(1) When the marriage has been solemnized, the Marriage Officer shall enter a certificate thereof in the form specified in the Fourth Schedule in a book to be kept by him for that purpose and to be called the Marriage Certificate Book and such certificate shall be signed by the parties to the marriage and the three witnesses.
(2) On a certificate being entered in the Marriage Certificate Book by the Marriage Officer, the Certificate shall be deemed to be conclusive evidence of the fact that a marriage under this Act has been solemnized and that all formalities respecting the signatures of witnesses have been complied with."
18. Section 4 of SM Act lays down conditions relating to solemnization of special marriages. The Section says "any two persons" of any caste, crede, religion and faith, domicile or nationality could solemnize marriages with certain territorial or
- 17 -
NC: 2024:KHC:10541-DB MFA No. 8418/2017 C/W MFA No. 2965/2021 other limitations. marriage is to be performed between two persons in India under certain conditions as enumerated in clauses (a) to (e) of Section 4 of SM Act. The conditions of marriage as envisaged under the Sections are:
(a) neither party as spouse living;
(b) capability of marriage (imports the soundness of mind, mental disorder of such a nature or kind or to such an extent as to be unfit fit for marriage, recurrent, insanity or epilepsy is another rider on the marriage under this Act);
(c) prescribes age for marriage of the persons under this Act, age of male to be 21 years and 18 years in case of female;
(d) degree of prohibited relationship, meaning if the parties to the marriage are in the degree of prohibited relationship, then the marriage cannot be solemnized;
(e) marriage outside India;
(f) neither party is an idiot or lunatic.
19. Section 5 lays down the procedure of an intended marriage. This Section envisages that when parties to the marriage intends to solemnize the marriage under this Act,
- 18 -
NC: 2024:KHC:10541-DB MFA No. 8418/2017 C/W MFA No. 2965/2021 they shall give a notice in the prescribed form to the marriage officer of the District in which atleast one of the parties of the marriage are resided for a period of not less than 30 days immediately preceding the date on which notice is given. The parties hereto submitted application as is evident at Ex.P-5 about the intention of marriage. The provisions are clear and exhaustive in nature while making it clear that the desirous parties to give their intention to marry.
20. Section 6 of the SM Act lays down that the marriage officer can cause any such notice to be published by affixing a copy thereof to some conspicuous place in his office and when either of the parties to an intended marriage is not permanently residing within a local limits of the district. Marriage officer to whom the notice has been given under Section 5 of the Act, the marriage officer can also cause a copy of such notice to be transmitted to the marriage officer of the district within whose limit such party is permanently residing. This Section provides a procedure to be followed by concerned marriage officer who has been given notice under Section 5 of the SM Act to the intending marriage of the parties.
- 19 -
NC: 2024:KHC:10541-DB MFA No. 8418/2017 C/W MFA No. 2965/2021
21. Section 7 of the said Act envisages that, any person before expiry of 30 days, notice can object to the marriage on the ground that it would contravene one or more of the conditions specified in Section 4 and not otherwise. There is no special form of marriage solemnization under the Act. Only certain formalities have to be undergone as per the Act. Neither any ritual nor any particular ceremony are to be performed, Section 12(2) of the Act specifically lays down that the marriage may be solemnized in any form which the party may choose to adopt. This clause has a proviso, but that is only a compulsory formality which the parties will perform by uttering certain words and solemnization of marriage becomes complete as soon as the formalities under the Act is complete, the marriage is complete in all aspects. PW.4 - the Sub- registrar has categorically spoken about the due completion of the formalities and issuance of the certificate of marriage on completion of the formalities as envisaged under Section 12 of the Act.
22. Section 13 of the SM Act envisages that when a marriage has been solemnized, the marriage officer shall enter a certificate thereof in the form specified and he shall enter in
- 20 -
NC: 2024:KHC:10541-DB MFA No. 8418/2017 C/W MFA No. 2965/2021 the book kept by him for the said purpose and would be called the marriage certificate book. On the certificate being entered in the marriage certificate book by the marriage officer, the certificate shall be deemed to be a conclusive evidence of the fact that the marriage under this Act has been solemnized and all the formalities respecting the signature of the witnesses has been complied with. Therefore, the certificate of marriage issued by the marriage officer is conclusive proof of the fact of marriage, due consent of the parties to the marriage. In such cases, it is not open to say that the marriage was illegal or invalid because, certain formalities required by the Act were not followed. The legislature intended that, if this had not been provided, then the persons other than the parties to the marriage certificate could also prove the defect in the procedure followed in a particular marriage with the result that the offsprings of such union would have become illegitimate children and regarding succession to male spouse, different course could have followed i.e., the children born from such alliance could not succeed. To avoid the complication, the law makers have attached conclusiveness to the certificate of marriage. The fact that the marriage had solemnized on
- 21 -
NC: 2024:KHC:10541-DB MFA No. 8418/2017 C/W MFA No. 2965/2021 17.10.2015 is not in dispute, the formalities regarding signatures of witnesses uttering of certain words as envisaged under Section 12(2) of the Act having been followed, the husband cannot now contend that Sections 6(3) and 12(2) of the Act have not been complied and accordingly, we are of the considered view that the certificate of marriage issued under Section 13 is conclusive proof of solemnization of marriage and point No.(i) is answered accordingly. Point Nos.(ii) and (iii):
23. Point Nos.(ii) and (iii) are taken up together to avoid repetition of facts.
24. Section 25 of the SM Act reads as under:
"25. Voidable marriages.―Any marriage solemnized under this Act shall be voidable and may be annulled by a decree of nullity if,―
(i) the marriage has not been consummated owing to the wilful refusal of the respondent to consummate the marriage; or
(ii) the respondent was at the time of the marriage pregnant by some person other than the petitioner; or
- 22 -
NC: 2024:KHC:10541-DB MFA No. 8418/2017 C/W MFA No. 2965/2021
(iii) the consent of either party to the marriage was obtained by coercion or fraud, as defined in the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (9 of 1872):
Provided that, in the case specified in clause
(ii), the court shall not grant a decree unless it is satisfied,―
(a) that the petitioner was at the time of the marriage ignorant of the facts alleged;
(b) that proceedings were instituted within a year from the date of the marriage; and
(c) that marital intercourse with the consent of the petitioner has not taken place since the discovery by the petitioner of the existence of the grounds for a decree:
Provided further that in the case specified in clause (iii), the court shall not grant a decree if,―
(a) proceedings have not been instituted within one year after the coercion had ceased or, as the case may be, the fraud had been discovered; or
- 23 -
NC: 2024:KHC:10541-DB MFA No. 8418/2017 C/W MFA No. 2965/2021
(b) the petitioner has with his or her free consent lived with the other party to the marriage as husband and wife after the coercion had ceased or, as the case may be, the fraud had been discovered."
(emphasis supplied)
25. Section 25(iii) of the SM Act envisages that the Court can grant a decree on the ground that any marriage solemnized under SM Act can be voidable if the consent of either party to the marriage is obtained by coercion or fraud. Sub-clause (iii) of Section 25 of the SM Act clearly envisages that fraud and coercion are the other grounds on which a decree of annulment of marriage has been provided. The Section has described the scope of definition by making it clear that "fraud and coercion" will have the same meaning as defined in the Indian Contract Act. "Fraud" is defined under Section 17 and "coercion" is defined in Section 15 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.
Section 15 "coercion" reads as under:
"15. 'Coercion' defined.--'Coercion' is the committing, or threatening to commit, any act forbidden by the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) or the unlawful detaining, or threatening to
- 24 -
NC: 2024:KHC:10541-DB MFA No. 8418/2017 C/W MFA No. 2965/2021 detain, any property, to the prejudice of any person whatever, with the intention of causing any person to enter into an agreement.
Explanation.--It is immaterial whether the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) is or is not in force in the place where the coercion is employed."
Section 17 "Fraud" means as under:
"17. 'Fraud' defined.--'Fraud' means and includes any of the following acts committed by a party to a contract, or with his connivance, or by his agent, with intent to deceive another party thereto of his agent, or to induce him to enter into the contract:--
(1) the suggestion, as a fact, of that which is not true, by one who does not believe it to be true;
(2) the active concealment of a fact by one having knowledge or belief of the fact;
(3) a promise made without any intention of performing it;
(4) any other act fitted to deceive;
(5) any such act or omission as the law specially
declares to be fraudulent.
- 25 -
NC: 2024:KHC:10541-DB
MFA No. 8418/2017
C/W MFA No. 2965/2021
Explanation.--Mere silence as to facts likely to affect the willingness of a person to enter into a contract is not fraud, unless the circumstances of the case are such that, regard being had to them, it is the duty of the person keeping silence to speak, or unless his silence, is, in itself, equivalent to speech."
26. For an annulment of marriage under Section 25(iii) of the SM Act, it is important to prove that the consent for the marriage was obtained by coercion or fraud as defined in Indian Contract Act. The husband contended that he was taken to the office of the Marriage Registrar after he being confined in a lockup and he was pressurized to sign the marriage register, there is no volunteering on the part of the husband to the marriage. The material on record would, on the other hand, reveal various aspects which makes this Court to disbelieve the contention of the husband and we say so for the following reasons:
(i) on 11.09.2015, Exs.P-5 notice of marriage intended issued by marriage officer, sub-registrar Gouribidaur, on the notice for intended marriage by the parties at Ex.P-8 in the prescribed form for solemnization of the marriage and the said
- 26 -
NC: 2024:KHC:10541-DB MFA No. 8418/2017 C/W MFA No. 2965/2021 notice for intended marriage was duly signed by the husband and wife along with the signatures of the attesting witnesses, the notice was accompanied with the documents for age verification i.e., SSLC marks card and the aadhaar card of the appellant-husband as well as the respondent-wife. Exs.P-9 and P-10 pertains to the husband and Exs.D-17 and D-20 are the documents pertaining to the respondent-wife.
(ii) Ex.P-13 is the joint affidavit of both the parties dated 11.09.2015 about their intention to marry.
(iii) Ex.P-14 is the register of the marriage and the signature of the parties in the register.
(iv) Ex.P-1 is the marriage certificate issued after one month of the notification of the intended marriage and the marriage was registered on 17.10.2015.
(v) Though the husband tried to contend that he had given a requisition after 11.09.2015 to the concerned registrar for canceling the marriage and also contended that he was confined in the lockup through out the night on 16.10.2015 a day prior to the marriage registration on 17.10.2015, the said averments of the husband is not substantiated by any material
- 27 -
NC: 2024:KHC:10541-DB MFA No. 8418/2017 C/W MFA No. 2965/2021 record. Therefore, this Court has no option, but to disbelieve the contention of the husband at the threshold. Moreover, PW.4-Sub-registrar of Gouribidanur, has categorically in an unequivocal terms denied about any force of the husband to get the marriage solemnized, the voluntary act of the husband when he had come for solemnization of marriage has been spoken to by PW.4. PW.4 has categorically stated that only on consent of both the parties, the marriage registration would take place. On perusal of the evidence of PW.4, at no stretch of imagination, it can be presumed that the consent to marriage was made by coercion/fraud as pleaded by the husband. The photographs produced at Exs.D-1 to D-16 nowhere indicate about an isolation or any force being played upon the husband for entering into the marriage before the Sub-registrar on 17.10.2015.
27. All these aspects clearly show that the conduct of the appellant-husband knocks the bottom out the allegation of the appellant-husband having been threatened. Thus, from the material stated above, it is clear that the husband has voluntarily consented for marriage and the solemnization of
- 28 -
NC: 2024:KHC:10541-DB MFA No. 8418/2017 C/W MFA No. 2965/2021 marriage and the solemnization of marriage cannot be declared void.
28. The fact that the appellant and the respondent have been known to each other since 2013 and they were in cordial relationship is not in dispute. PW.1 to PW.4's evidence no way support the case of the husband to prove that he had entered into solemnization of marriage under coercion, duress or fraud.
29. The circumstances enumerated above do not make us believe the theory of appellant-husband's consent having been obtained under coercion or of any fraud having practiced on him. The grounds urged are not sufficient for annulling the marriage and the husband has failed to prove that there was any coercion or fraud in practice before the Sub-registrar making him to sign or subscribe his signature by force. The trial Court has rightly dismissed the petition filed by the husband under Section 25(iii) of the SM Act and has allowed the petition filed by the wife under Section 22 for restitution of conjugal rights warranting no interference by this Court and accordingly, point Nos.(ii) and (iii) are answered against the appellant-husband. Hence the following:
- 29 -
NC: 2024:KHC:10541-DB
MFA No. 8418/2017
C/W MFA No. 2965/2021
ORDER
(i) The appeals are dismissed.
(ii) The impugned orders of the Courts below stand confirmed.
No order as to costs.
In view of dismissal of the appeal, pending I.As. if any would stand disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE S*