Delhi District Court
Sh. Pramod Kumar vs Smt. Jyoti Sharma @ Ruby on 2 September, 2013
1
IN THE COURT OF MS. SUJATA KOHLI
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE (WEST)
TIS HAZARI : DELHI
HMA No.: 159/10
Sh. Pramod Kumar
S/o Sh. Hukam Chand
R/o C4H/140, DDA Staff Quarters,
Janakpuri, New Delhi58.
.....Petitioner
VERSUS
Smt. Jyoti Sharma @ Ruby
W/o Sh. Pramod Kumar
D/o Sh. Sham Lal Sharma,
R/o A30, Subadhra Colony,
Sarai Basti, Sarai Rohilla,
Delhi.
....Respondent
Date of filing the petition : 28.04.2010
Date of reserving the Judgment/Order : 02.09.2013
Date of passing the Judgment/Order : 02.09.2013
2
ORDER U/O 12 Rule 6 CPC
Vide this Order I shall dispose off an application filed by the petitioner/husband to seek a decree on admissions under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC. It has mainly been stated herein that the respondent/wife had been facing several criminal cases on serious charges prior to her marriage and even on the date of the marriage with the petitioner/husband, about the pendency of which she kept concealed from the petitioner/husband. The petitioner/husband would not have entered into a marriage with the respondent/wife, had he known about pendency of the said criminal cases. 2 The main petition was filed under Section 12(1)(c) seeking annulment of the marriage and to declare it as null and void on these grounds. In this application, as per the petitioner/husband, the respondent/wife in her written statement has no where denied the factum of concealment anymore therein, and on the contrary all that she has done throughout in the WS is to counter question the petitioner/husband himself and the source of his discovery about the said information. Neither she disputed the pendency of the criminal cases nor the fact that she had not divulged about these criminal cases. She only put a question mark and blamed the persons who had unearthed the said information to the petitioner/husband alleging that the said 3 third persons had illmotives.
3 It is necessary to put down herein the said criminal cases which were found to be pending against the respondent/wife in order to highlight the gravity of the offences as stated by the petitioner/husband being as under:
1. Complaint Case bearing No.98 dated 03.03.2008 lodged by the immediate neighbor of the respondent/wife against respondent/wife and her entire family at Alwar, Rajasthan, accusing all of them for indulging in illegal activities relating to immoral turpitude and after an inquiry by the concerned Magistrate, the case was finally registered against the entire family being No.18/356 at Alwar, Rajasthan.
2. FIR No.683 dated 08.09.2009 PS Kotputli, Rajasthan, Under Section 420 IPC regarding a fraud w.r.t. ATM transactions in the account of another person to the extent of Rs. 4 lacs. 4 As per the petitioner/husband, the respondent/wife in her written statement has simply tried to explain on the merits of the said complaints i.e. the complaints were false complaints; but the question involved herein, by way of this application is not whether the complaints as lodged by the different persons were false or correct; but the question is squarely one, as 4 to whether there was concealment about the pendency of the said cases by the respondent/wife and her family members from the petitioner/husband and his family members at the time of negotiations for the marriage. 5 Even in the reply to this application itself, apart from trying to justify the claim that the complaints as false, there was no single averment made to the effect, that there was no concealment, in the written statement. Respondent/wife did not even once state that there was no concealment on her part about the pendency of all these complaints. It is clear that none was concerned with the truth or correctness of the complaints at this stage, but for the purpose of liability under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC all that is to be seen is whether there is any denial to the material averments made or not. 6 The clear case of the petitioner was based on the allegations of fraud having been committed upon him and his family members by the respondent and her family members and in view of this it was quite necessary that there should have been a specific denial to his averments. 7 In the light of this, ld. Counsel for petitioner during the course of arguments has taken me through the relevant portions of the pleadings i.e. particularly the paras number 17 to 21, wherein he has made very serious averments about the respondent and about the said criminal cases pending 5 against her. From the entire contents thereof, it is also clearly made out that the petitioner claims to have discovered the pendency of all these criminal cases against the respondent; when the marriage with the respondent had already taken place.
8 He has narrated the entire incidents and then in para 19, the averment that he alongwith his mother went to Alwar on 20.04.2010 and after making enquiries and made their inquiries and discovered the truth about the respondent and learnt about the pendency of the complaints particularly about the immoral turpitude.
9 Thereafter, ld. Counsel for petitioner/husband also took me through the relevant paras of the WS particularly para 5 and 6 of the preliminary objections and to the pars number 17 to 21 on merits. Upon going through all these contents, not one word to show that the respondent has anywhere disputed, that she had concealed about the pendency of the criminal cases. Instead, all that she has averred is firstly about the ill will of the third person who has divulged the information to the petitioner/husband. Thus, implying that even the said third person should not have revealed it ever to the petitioner/husband, all this should have remained a secret for the years to come.
610 Secondly, she has questioned the correctness of the complaints. She has only gone into the complaints being false or correct but there is not a whisper in the entire WS by the respondent to the effect that there was no concealment on her part or that of her family members. It is not her case that she or her family members had already disclosed about the pendency of the criminal cases prior to or at the time of marriage. She has gone into narrating about the enmities of the third persons who made the complaints; but not once she dispute the factum of the concealment.
11 It is also necessary and relevant to highlight the gravity of the offences w.r.t. to criminal cases which are pending against the respondent/wife, one case pertains to immoral turpitude and the other is about misuse of an ATM Card to the extent of Rs.4 lacs.
12 It was further highlighted during arguments, that on 27.11.2009 i.e. the date of marriage, the respondent/wife, just 11 days prior to the marriage, had been admitted to the anticipatory bail. This fact of being on anticipatory bail was also not disclosed to the petitioner. 13 There was no denial to this concealment as well. The discussion on the merits of the criminal case was not so much relevant as about the allegations of concealment, which were leveled by the petitioner/husband 7 which required a specific denial. Far from being specific there was no denial whatsoever.
14 It was conspicuous that even in the reply filed to this application, respondent/nonapplicant chose not to deny the averment that she had kept the pendency of these criminal cases concealed from the petitioner/husband. As per Order 8 Rule 5 CPC, the facts not denied are deemed admitted and need no further proof and also as per Order 12 Rule 6 CPC, the matter would call for a decree to be passed on the admissions.
15 It was urged before the court by the ld. Counsel for petitioner, that no reasonable minded person would be normally entering into a marriage alliance knowing that the would be spouse was facing such kind of criminal cases as immoral turpitude and cheating relating to ATM; and secondly, petitioner/husband would certainly not have entered the marriage, had he been disclosed this information prior to the marriage or even at the time of marriage. Since even respondent has not bothered to deny this fact that she has not disclosed about the pendency of all these criminal cases, it is a clear cut case of fraud made out and the consent of the petitioner to enter into marriage was obtained by fraud.
16 Ld. Counsel for respondent could not counter any of the 8 arguments being agitated before the court by ld. Counsel for petitioner. The submissions made were not even relevant on the aspect under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC and even whatever submissions he made were on merits of those complaints which were not relevant at all. As such even he did not contend that the allegations of fraud had been denied anywhere in the written statement by the respondent/wife.
17 Section 12 (1)(c) provides as under: "Voidable Marraiges - (1) Any marriage solemnized, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, shall be voidable and may be annulled by a decree of nullity on any of the following grounds, namely:........
(c) that the consent of the petitioner, or where the consent of the guardian in marriage of the petitioner [was required under section 5 as it stood immediately before the commencement of the Child Marriage Restraint (Amendment) Act, 1978 (2 of 1978)], the consent of such guardian was obtained by force [or by fraud as to the nature of the ceremony or as to any material fact or circumstance concerning the respondent."
18 Accordingly, in view of the above discussion, allowing the application filed by the petitioner/husband under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC, the allegations of fraud in the petition stand admitted and accordingly, the petition 9 is decreed, declaring the marriage between the parties as being null and void under Section 12 (1)(c) of HMA.
Decree sheet be drawn.
File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open court (SUJATA KOHLI) today i.e. 02.09.2013 ADJ/WEST/DELHI