Bombay High Court
Alan Joseph D'Souza vs Joyce Mariquinha D'Souza on 10 March, 1993
Equivalent citations: II(1994)DMC270
JUDGMENT M.S. Rane, J.
1. The Petitioner-husband has filed this Petition seeking declaration that his marriage with his wife-the Respondent be annulled by a decree of nullity, under Sections 18 and 19 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869. The said relief is claimed on the two grounds, viz, (i). That the Respdt. was impotent at the time of marriage and continued to be so at the date of the institution of this Petition; and (ii) His consent to the marriage was obtained by practicing fraud.
2. Relevant necessary facts are adverted to hereinbelow :
3. (i) The Appellant married the Respondent at Bombay on 31st of May, 1986 according to the Roman Catholic rites and ceremonies of the Catholic Church. A copy of the Marriage Certificate has been annexed as Exh. A to the Petition. The petitioner is the permanent resident of Bombay and is engaged in the business of clearing and forwarding Agent whereas, at the time of marriage the Respondent was working in the American Embassy and was posted in Baharain and continues to do work till date.
(ii) The material on record indicates that after the marriage, parties lived together for about one year, to be precise, upto 15th May, 1987, with interval breaks as would be mentioned hereinafter, at Bombay, various places in Northern India, such as Delhi, Simla, Manali, Jammu, Srinagar, etc., during their honeymoon trip which lasted for about 17 days and abroad at Baharain. It is admitted fact that since 15th May, 1987, parties have not lived together.
4. (i) It is the case of the petitioner that since his marriage he made frequent attempts to consummate the marriage with the Respondent, but due to an invincible and persistent repugnance on the part of the Respondent to the Act of consummation, he had failed to achieve it, and as such, the marriage has remained unconsummated. The petitioner has stated that the Respondent, his wife was impotent at the time of the marriage and continued to be so until the institution of this Petition. According to him the impotency of the Respondent is responsible for the non-consummation of the marriage. He also avers that the refusal on the part of his wife in not allowing consummation of the marriage was due to the fact that the Respondent is more keen in pursuing her career than playing the role of the mother and house-wife.
(ii) The second ground, namely fraud in obtaining his consent to the marriage is sought to be attributed to the conduct of the Respondent in continuing to stay at Baharain even after the marriage. Inasmuch as, although the Petition does not disclose the particulars of fraud, it is sought to be suggested that the Respondent, before the marriage had agreed to leave Baharain and return to Bombay permanently to stay with the petitioner which she had failed to do. It is only on such assurance of the Respondent that the petitioner gave his consent to the marriage with the Respondent.
5. The Respondent-wife has contested the Petition on various grounds.
(i) As regards non-consummation of the marriage, the wife has emphatically denied that their marriage was not consummated. She asserts that their marriage was consummated on the very day of the marriage, when they lived and co-habited together in a Room in Taj Mahal Hotel at Bombay. She has categorically denied that she showed any repugnance whatsoever to the Act of consummation of the marriage. She has specially averred that, immediately after marriage, she alongwith her husband proceeded to honeymoon trip at various places in North India, such as Delhi, Manali, Simla, Srinagar. Jammu, etc. and their said trip lasted for about 17 days and during the said period, they both cohabited together and enjoyed conjugal relations. They engaged frequently in acts of sexual intercourse during their honeymoon trip. The petitioner was fully satisfied and was happy. So much so, that they extended their stay by couple of days.
(ii) The wife has stated that after return from their honeymoon trip, she resided with her husband till 3rd of July 1986, except for 4 days when she went to Hyderabad with the knowledge and consent of her husband to meet her mother, and during such stay, they had regular and normal sex and both enjoyed it with full satisfaction. Her husband was quite happy and they together during that period, paid social visits to the relations and friends of her husband and she makes specific reference of the fact that her husband never made any complaint to any one or showed any sign of unhappiness. On the other hand, she states, that her husband after her departure to Baharain, wrote number of letters to her expressing his love and affection towards her and graphically referring to the joyful and enjoyous moments they had during their honeymoon trip.
(iii) The Respondent-wife then refers to the visit of the petitioner to Babarain in April-May 1987 and his stay therewith her for about 40 days. During his said stay, they resided at the place of her sister in Baharain. They had separate and independent room and had frequent sexual intercourse with complete satisfaction of her husband on every available opportunity. It is she also financed her husband's visit and arranged visa etc. She then makes specific reference to the letters which her husband wrote to her after returning from Baharain, where in he has expressed his happiness and satisfaction. She, in particular, refers to the letter dated 24th June, 1987 which her husband wrote to her shortly after return from Baharain and places heavy reliance on the portion of said letter, which reads as :
"I have not known marital bliss except during our honeymoon for three weeks and during the last week of my stay in Baharain."
It may be stated that, bunch of such letters between the husband and wife and their relations have been produced before the Court.
(iv) Dealing with the Petitioner's case of fraud in obtaining his consent to the marriage, the Respondent has vehemently denied the same asserting that the Petitioner has invented this false excuse as an after thought device without furnishing adequate particulars in support of the said ground. She, on the other hand, has recounted three meetings they had, prior to the settlement of their marriage, when Petitioner's relations were present and free and frank discussion over all the matters. That she was employed with the American Embassy and posted at Baharain was known to the Petitioner and his parents and other relatives who participated in the approval of the marriage proposal. She states that it is the Petitioner who took initiation and lead in fixing the Wedding date, venue, etc. In this respect she has referred to the letters which the Petitioner wrote to her at Baharain, prior to the marriage, to point out the falsity of the said ground of fraud set up by the Petitioner.
(v) In short, the wife has denied the various grounds set forth by her husband in support of his Petition herein as being false and baseless and prayed for dismissal of his petition.
6. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, issues as under were raised and settled, on 22nd January, 1993.
1. Whether petitioner proves that the Respondent was impotent at the time of marriage and continued to be so at the time of institution of the petition;
2. Whether petitioner proves that his consent to the marriage was obtained by force or fraud as alleged in para (9) of the petition,
3. Whether petitioner is estopped from filing this petition for nullity of marriage on the ground of alleged impotency, having already filed petition for annullment of marriage before Church Tribunal, Bombay on the ground of "Simulation and lack of Commitment" on 11.10.87 and getting the marriage declared as null and void.
4. Whether petitioner proves that his marriage with the respondent has not been consummated.
5. Whether conduct of the petitioner is such that he is not entitled to the relief in the petition.
6. Whether there is any collusion in filing the petition.
7 Whether Respondent is entitled to permanent alimony, and if so, what amount.
8. What reliefs.
7. My findings on the above issues, are as under :
Issue No. 1 : No.
Issue No. 2 : No.
Issue No. 3 : Although raised not pressed or
elaborated. Even then, answered No.
Issue No. 4 : No.
Issue No. 5 : Yes.
Issue No. 6 : No.
Issue No. 7 : Does not survive in view of final order.
Issue No. 8 : Petition is dismissed.
8. The evidence made available by the parties herein, comprises of besides their respective pleadings already adverted to hereinabove, their oral testimonies before the Court and documents--all letters between the husband and wife and their respective relatives, tendered by consent and marked as compilation Exhibit 1 (colly,) and joint photographs of the husband and wife taken during their honeymoon trip, and exhibited again by consent as Ex. 2 (colly.) No other witnesses have been examined by either of the parties.
9. By and large, the oral testimony of the parties is reiteration of their pleadings which I have already mentioned while giving resume of factual narration, and needs no repeatation. The Petitioner husband has however, attempted to improve upon his stand, in support of ground of fraud, while deposing before the Court, to contend that he gave his consent to the marriage upon express promise by the Respondent that she would leave Baharain and return to India to stay with him permanently as his wife, six months after the marriage, which she has failed to fulfil as she had continued to serve and stay at Baharain till date. He has asserted that but for her such assurance he would not have consented to marry her. It is pertinent to note that his petition is conspicuously silent in this respect. The Respondent has promptly repudiated the said charge.
10. Returning to documentary evidence, as stated earlier, the same consists of mainly letters between the parties herein and some of their relatives, exchanged prior as also after the marriage being Exh. 1 colly on record. It is significant to note that in none of the letters of the Petitioner written to the Respondent, mention in clear term is made about the non-consummation of the marriage as also refusal of the Respondent to allow the petitioner to have sexual intercourse. Same is the position about the other ground of fraud. Photographs (Exh. 2 colly.) produced show the husband and wife in close company of each other and in a happy joyful mood. The Petitioner when confronted explained that he had just posed showing his happy expressions for the photographs.
11. Having thus noticed, in brief the nature of evidence, I now embark on consideration of the rival claims in the light of issues raised.
Issue Nos. 1 and 4 :
12. These are the principal issues, which read :
1. Whether petitioner proves that the Respondent was impotent at the time of marriage and continued to be so at the time of institution of the petition.
2. Whether petitioner proves' that his marriage with the Respondent has not been consummated.
Both the issues have close nexus and are closely interconnected and therefore are considered together to avoid overlapping discussion, in the light of legal provisions and material made available on record.
13 Under Section 18 read with Section 19(1) of the Indian Divorce Act of 1869, impotency of one of the spouses of the marriage affords ground for seeking decree for nullity of marriage. Sub-section (1) of Section 19, relevant in the matter herein, reads as :
"That the respondent was impotent at the time of the marriage and at the time of the institution of the suit."
14. The legal provisions in a matter of impotence as a ground for nullity of marriage implies lack of ability to perform sexual act. It means incapacity to have conjugal intercourse, which is undoubtedly one of the prime objects of marriage. A spouse is impotent if his or her mental or physical condition makes consummation of the marriage a practical impossibility. Incapacity to consummate the marriage need not necessarily be physical. It may be due as well to mental causes. There can be cases of invincible repugnance to the act of sexual intercourse. There can be also cases of wilful refusal to allow the consummation of the marriage. Such impotency must have existed at the time of the marriage and persisted in till the institution of the Petition in the Court.
15. Having noticed the legal position, it is necessary to consider as to whether and how far the evidence placed before the Court by both the parties, helps the Court in resolving the issues, either way.
16. At the outset, it needs to be stated that it is not the specific case or contention of the Petitioner-husband that the impotency of the wife is due to any physical or structural defect in the organs of generation of the Respondent which is of incurable nature. There is no evidence at all in this respect made available, either medical or otherwise. The petitioner has made reference in the petition so also in his evidence before the Court he having suggested the Respondent, during their honeymoon trip for medical check up, which she refused. The petitioner has not elaborated this aspect further either in his pleadings or in his evidence before the Court. The Respondent has denied about making of such suggestion asserting that there was no occasion for the same as their marriage was consummated.
17. On the other hand, the entire tenor of the pleadings in the petition as also the oral evidence of the petitioner before the Court thrives and drives to point out that the marriage remained to be consummated because of refusal of the Respondent to sexual act and her repugnance for the same. Inasmuch as in para 9 of the Petition he clearly states :
"The Petitioner states that he has made various attempts with the Respondent to consummate the marriage and have sexual intercourse, but to no avail due to refusal on the part of the Respondent."
18. The Petitioner also repeats and reiterates in the same manner in his oral testimony before the Court. In that on page 2 of his Notes of Evidence, he deposes in examination-in-chief :
"During our stay in Bombay, I did try to consummate the marriage. But the Respondent refused to have sexual intercourse saying that she was scared of pregnancy and of having child which would affect her employments.
Further, the parties had long stay together for about 40 days in Baharain and Petitioner has deposed before the Court in his examination-in-chief on page No. 3 of Notes of Evidence, as under :
"During my stay in Baharain I was not successful in consummating the marriage because of the refusal by the Respondent."
19. It therefore clearly emerges from the above evidence of the Petitioner, that the reason for non-consummation of the marriage is due to refusal of his wife to allow him to do so i.e. to have sexual intercourse.
20. As against this, the Respondent has been emphathatic in denying the said case of the Petitioner. She has so deposed before the Court in her testimony, so also reiterated in her pleadings in the written statement.
21. More than that, she has placed strong reliance upon the various letters which the Petitioner wrote her, produced as compilation Exh. 1 colly. The Petitioner has before the Court admitted having written all these letters, which have been exhibited by consent of both the parties. Such letters can be conveniently devided into two stages. Firstly, between the period from 3rd July, 1986 to 4th April, 1987 i.e. immediately after the marriage followed by honeymoon trip and departure of the Respondent to Babarain, and, secondly, between 15th May 1987, i.e. on Petitioner's return from Baharain after staying with the Respondent for 40 days and date of the institution of this Petition. These letters written from time to time, is the contemporaneous record, would speak volume and throw light to ascertain the truth. The same would also reflect the conduct of the parties.
22. It is to be stated that in a dispute of a nature as in the case in hand, no minimum standard of proof can be expected. Even uncorroborated testimony of the Petitioner would be sufficient if it can be trustworthy. However the conduct of the parties subsequent to the marriage wou!d assume great significance, particularly when serious charge of non-consummation of the marriage because of refusal by the wife has been made.
23. Considering the case of the Petitioner, as revealed from his pleadings, oral testimony, his various letters and his conduct, and the totality of the circumstances and applying the test of preponderance of probabilities, it is impossible to accept and hard to believe the contention of the Petitioner to say that his marriage with the Respondent has not been consummated, for more than one reasons.
26. It is in the evidence that on the very day of the marriage during the night parties stayed in a Room in Taj Mahal Hotel, Bombay which was reserved by the Petitioner. Petitioner says that in that night he could not have sexual intercourse because Respondent he menstrual course. Respondent on the other hand says that although it was second day.of her M.C. they had sexual intercourse. The next opportunity to the parties became available during their honeymoon trip, which lasted for 16-17 days. It is deposed by both the parties that they went to various places in North India such as Delhi, Simla, Manali, Srinagar, Jammu, etc. and stayed in the Hotels and shared a common bed. Petitioner wants to say that Respondent refused to allow him to have conjugal relations during all these days. The Respondent, on the other hand says that they engaged in frequent sexual intercourse during those days and enjoyed their honeymoon. Between the version of the Petitioner and the Respondent, I am inclined to believe and accept the words of the Respondent. If, as the Petitioner says that he had frustrating and disappointing experience, on the very first day of the marriage and then during their honeymoon trip lasting for 16/17 days, it is highly improbable that the parties would have prolonged their trip for such a long time and visited so many places, like Delhi, Simla, Manali, Srinagar, Jammu, etc. Various joint photographs produced as Exh. 2 colly, show the husband and wife in a joyous mood intimately clinging each other. There are no signs of disappointment or unhappiness notice on the face of the Petitioner. The explanation of the Petitioner that he merely so posed in the photograph, to say the last, smacks of an attempt at belated stage and as after thought devices. It what the Petitioner now says was the position, it is impossible to believe that he would have merely so posed in the joint photos with his wife.
27. The immediate conduct of the Petitioner after return from honeymoon also has considerable bearing. In that, as he has admitted before the Court, that he never mentioned to any one, even to his parents, about non-consummation of the marriage. He was residing with his parents. There were his other relations in Bombay. If he had frustrating honeymoon trip, as he now depicts, then it was but natural conduct of such wronged spouse to mention the same to his parents. What is mere, on return from honeymoon, the Respondent went to Hyderabad and after visiting there, stayed with the Petitioner for 4 days before going to Baharain. Respondent has stated that during her stay, they had sexual intercourse.
28. The next most vital circumstances which strongly militak against the Petitioner is his own letters which he wrote to the Respondent after she went to Baharain. It is in the evidence that she left for Baharain on 3rd of July 1987. The first letter which the Petitioner wrote to the Respondent thereafter is dated 10th July, 1986 (Pages 18 to 20 of Compilation Exh. 1 colly.). It would suffice to have relevant portion extracted therefrom, which would throw light on the mind and conduct of the Petitioner :
"Sweetheart, you better catch up on all the lost sleep of the past month and also on the sleep you going to miss in the future. With me around it may not be possible for you to get the sleep you require. You know what I mean."
"Darling I am so happy to get such a nice wife like you. I am trust you will my very life,"
"I feel that life has, no meaning without you. Sweetheart, you will never be able to imagine how much I love you and miss you. You made my life really bright by coming into it and now that you are gone back to the land of black gold. I feel I am grasping in the dark. What happened to me on the 7th day is happening to me very often. I can't bear your absence."
29. The next letter of the Petitioner is dated 23rd July, 1987 (Pages 21-26). It is worth quoting therefrom :
"For about ten days after you left, I was feeling out of sorts and could not concentrate on my work. Nor that there is much work, business being a bit slack. You are always on my mind my dearest darling and I am truly jitting for you. It's only the thought of my seeing you in Nov./Dec. that makes your absence bearable and churs me up a bit."
"When I married you sweetheart, I really didn't know what to expect, as I knew you, for only very short while. But on our honeymoon and after that I really got to know you so intimately practically as well as I know myself. I love you my dearest darling, not only for your great beauty, but for all the good qualities of head and heart that the good Lord has given you. I couldn't ever find a better wife than you, even if I had to roam this whole wide world for the rest of my life. I really thank the lord for giving me such a lovely and suitable girl like you."
"I hope you have been able to make up for all the lost slap, as there is no one now to worry you at nights. Are there any mosquitoes in Baharain ?"
It is useful also to refer to his letter dated 28th July, 1986 (Pages 27 to 31) wherein he writes :
"Sweetheart I miss you so much that there are just no words to express the loss I feel by your absence."
"Most women feel that men are very loving during the honeymoon period and later on show their true colours. Although I was very loving during our honeymoon. I will continue loving you my dearest darling, even more in the years to come, albeit with a little less passion.
''I hope your car has started behaving itself. I also hope that you have caught up on all your lost sleep. I have got so used to you being around both during the day, as well as the night, that I have to ask God for the strength and courage to live alone for a few months and to bear your absence."
30. The last in the context is his letter dated 7th August, 1986 (Pages 38 to 41), in which he states:
"Sweetheart, the day is not very far off when you will be able to sleep continuously for two or three day, I pland to arrive in Baharain on a Wednesday evening. You can sleep with me whole of Thursday, Friday. I promise to disturb you once in a while."
31. Now I will make reference to some of the Petitioner's letters which he wrote to the Respondent after returning from Baharain on 15.5.1987 (Pages 68 to 70), wherein he recounts how he spent days in Baharam in the company of his wife, in these words :
"I realize now how deep you love for me is and also how much I love you. I miss you a lot darling and I would do anything in the word to be with you again or to have you here with me. I feel that my life has no meaning or direction without you "
In next letter dated 7th June, 1987, he records :
"In Baharain I did keep excellent health mainly on account of the concern and attention I got from you, your dad, Jean, Stan Joel and Gernny. The children also helped me to relax completed In the last week of my stay you were back to your normal self and that last week with you was pure bliss. That is the way I would like to live my life with you. I feel that life without you has no meaning for me. One year of separation is much more than I can bear and I just cannot take any more of it."
The last on the subject is his letter of 24th June 1987, where he writes :
"I have not known marital bliss except during our honeymoon for three weeks and during the last week of my stay in Baharain."
32. The Petitioner, as stated earlier, has admitted having written these letters to the Respondent. If one reads the same, in particular above extracted portions thereform, it is difficult and impossible to reconcile with the stand which the petitioner has now taken, to say that his marriage with the Respondent has not been consummated. Indeed, if that was the case, he would not have waxed such love and affection, expressing his happiness about his wife in such various letters spread over for the period. If indeed his wife was guilty of such a grave matrimonial offence of not allowing him to consummate the marriage, he would not have eloquently waxed his deep sentiments and showed compliments in his various letters. It is curious and very pertinent to note that the Petitioner has not offered any explanation in writing such letters. The contents of the letters, he relevant of which I have reproduced above, completely negatives the case of the Petitioner about non-consummation of the marriage. The most important aspect of the matter is visit to Baharain and stay of 40 days with the Respondent. If what he says is true about his experience after marriage during the honeymoon trip, then, in the first instance he would not have written such letters, full of love and affection to the Respondent. Besides, he would not have visited Baharain and stayed for 40 days if he had frustrating and disappointing experience after marriage and stayed at Baharain for 40 days if the Respondent had behaved and conducted in a manner as Petitioner now suggests. Further, if the Respondent had no desire to allow the consummation of the marriage, then she would not have called the Petitioner to Baharain and spent for his fare and visa. The petitioner has admitted that it was his wife who financed his Baharain trip. On return from Baharain, if he had not enjoyed the conjugal relations with his wife, then he would not have written various letters to his wife, as noticed above, in the manner he has written. His said letters, a contemporaneous record speak a volume and clearly demonstrates the true state of affairs. His said own letters lend support to the case of the Respondent when she says that their marriage has been consummated.
33. The conspectus of the evidence and circumstances discussed above, leads to the irresistable conclusion that the case of the Petitioner that his marriage with the Respondent has not been consummated or that Respondent is impotent has not been made out. The Petitioner has failed to prove the said ground. Both the above issues therefore are answered in the negative.
34. Issue No. 2, which reads :
"2. Whether petitioner proves that his consent to the marriage was obtained by force or fraud as alleged in para (9) of the petition".
As would be pointed out that there is no merit or substance in the said grievance of the Petitioner. First of all there are no precise averments with requisite particulars in the Petition. This aspect is attempted to be developed and improved upon during the course of leading evidence before the Court. This itself is the glaring circumstance militating against the Petitioner.
35. The petitioner has tried to urge that the Respondent gave assurance prior to the marriage, that she would leave the job at Baharain and return to India within six months of the marriage and but for such assurance he would not have married her. The Respondent has denied having given such assurance. As stated, in the pleadings the Petitioner has not spelt out about such alleged assurance of the Respondent in his Petition. Even then, the course of events both prior to the marriage and subsequent thereto and conduct of the Petitioner do not make out the said ground at all.
36. In his letter dated 2nd August, 1986 (Pages 32 to 37 in compilation Exh. 1 colly.) which petitioner wrote to his wife at Baharain after marriage, no mention is made about alleged assurance nor it indicates that any such assurance was ever given. On the other hand, the Petitioner himself thought of going to Baharain and securing job for himself. This is borne out from the following portion of his said letter :
"I wonder if 1 will be able to get a job in Baharain, so that I would be busy during the day. How much the job will pay, is not very important. If I imagine to get a decent job to my liking. I may even decide to stay in Baharain for a couple of years, if you agree This is because I know how much you like the place and dread the idea of coming to Bombay. We will decide on idea, only when I arrive there in Baharain."
In his next letter dated 1st Dec. 1986 (Pages 46-49) he repeats his said mind thus:
"With all these business problems and headaches, I am seriously thinking of taking up employment in Baharain in case I like the place and I get a suitable job."
Yet in his another letter dated 21st May, 1987, (Pages 68-70) which he wrote after return from Baharain, he is more specific, when he writes :
"However, from what I have seen for myself, I feel that you will be more keen to stay on in Baharain. 1 myself like Baharain and its lifestyle. Therefore, if you are not keen on coming to Bombay I feel that 1 should come to Baharain. I will send you my bio-data in my next letter. So that you can see if I can get any opening somewhere."
The extracted paras clearly reveal the mind of the Petitioner. He himself thought of taking a job in Baharain. Again he does not offer any explanation about the said letters. If the period of 6 months to return was the essence after marriage as per assurance of the Respondent, then the Petitioner visited Baharain in April 1987, that is after about 10 months of the marriage. No explanation from the Petitioner for the same.
37. In the light of evidence discussed above, it is difficult to accept and believe the Petitioner in his case of want of consent as ground of fraud The own letters of the Petitioner exposes the far falsity of his case, needing no more elaboration. It is therefore held that the Petitioner also fails to prove this issue also.
38. The petitioner has made feeble attempts in support of his grounds to refer to portions of certain letters being part of Exh-1 colly. It is sought to be urged that the Respondent after marriage went to Baharain and had continued to reside there and she had no intention to return to India and stay with the petitioner as his wife. It is also stated that the Respondent had no love and affection left for the Petitioner. It needs to be however noted that this is nothing but feeble attempt on the part of the petitioner to gloss over the main issues involved in the matter herein. On two specific grounds upon which the Petitioner has claimed the reliefs in this Petition as discussed above, have not been made out by him. Therefore, the Petitioner cannot wriggle out by taking shelter in a manner he has sought to do. The grant of relief in the Petitioner depends upon the merits of the case of the Petitioner and not on the weakness of the other. Further, in the context of grounds in this Petition namely non-consummation and fraud for want of consent, the motive sought to be imputed to the Respondent as above will not be of any consequences.
39. Issue No. 5 :
In view of discussion and findings on above issues the same does not survive.
40. Isuue No. 3 :
Not pressed. Even otherwise considered unnecessary.
41. Issue No. 6 :
Does not survive in view of findings upon other issues.
42. Issue No. 7:
In view of dismissal of the Petition, considered unnecessary.
43. In the result the Petition stands dismissed.
44. The Respondent is awarded the cost in this Petition quantified at Rs. 3000/- as the result of dismissal thereof.
ORDER Petition dismissed.
Petitioner to pay the cost of the Petition to the Respondent quantified at Rs. 3000/-.