Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

14. The evidence of P.W. 1, according to Dr. Mondal, does not suggest even remotely that the petitioner ever made any enquiry about the bride before marriage. On the contrary, it has been assiduously canvassed by Dr. Mondal that the petitioner's visit to the residence of Rabin Chatterjee, the husband of the eldest sister of the petitioner was not few and far between. To disarm the allegations of fraud, premarital pregnancy and the operation following. Dr. Mondal has taken us through the countless lanes of the evidence of the parties. The evidence of the P.Ws. has ridiculed the claim of material suppression of fact, fraud, premarital pregnancy and the operation. The above, according to Dr. Mondal, is founded on slippery foundation.

18. Dr. Mondal in negation of the claim of Mr. Bhattacharyya about fraud and premarital termination of pregnancy has canvassed that P.W. 1, the petitioner has held back truth with an avowed object of getting a decree from the Court. He has twisted the fact to achieve his goal. But evidence of P.W. 1 is the last nail on the coffin when he says that only in October, 1992, he discovered the fraud when he wanted to have sexual intercourse with her. But the uncontroverted evidence of consummation marriage expels the claim of discovery of fraud in October, 1992.

19. Mr. Bhattacharyya has waxed eloquent as it proceeds from the first limb of his submission that Section 17 of the Contract Act, 1872, could be taken aid of as the respondent was under an obligation to speak to her husband about her premarital life. The silence and non-disclosure, in view of amendment of Section 12(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for the expressions, "or by fraud as to the nature of the ceremony or as to any material fact or circumstance concerning the respondent" have widened the scope of fraud. The non-disclosure and suppression of past life during maidenhood to her husband soon after the marriage or any time subsequent thereto, as argued, verges on the amendment of Section 12(1)(c) of the H.M. Act. To examine the viability of the argument, we have examined the core of Section 12(1)(c) of the H.M. Act, 1955, alongwith Section 17 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. On perusal, we are of the view, that Section 12(1)(c) of the H.M. Act does not deal with fraud in a general way nor deals with every misrepresentation nor concealment, the object of which may be fraudulent. We have made a witch hunting of the pleadings and the evidence to examine the potentiality of the petitioner's claim. But there is no slender material which could answer his claim. In the premise, we cannot but hold that they are mutually exclusive of each other and operate in different fields.

20. In the background of the evidence, there was no scope for perpetrating fraud. The allegation of premarital pregnancy and termination is a canard and his living with S.S. Roy for the evidence disclosed was not insalubrious. In this view of the case, further enquiry in unnecessary.

21. Realising the futility and the frailty of his arguments, Mr. Bhattacharyya tried to call into aid the allegations of adultery with Kanchan by the petitioner since disproved, the Court cannot take any oblique view but to pass a decree for cruelty perpetrated on him.