Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8. The petitioner led evidence and he has examined himself as PW.1 and his brother is examined as P.W.2 and got marked Ex.P1 to P3 and respondent is examined as R.W.1.

9. After hearing both the parties, the trial Court has framed the points for consideration and answering the points in the affirmative has passed the impugned judgment.

10. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

11. The learned counsel appearing for respondent- wife has argued that the grant of divorce decree relying upon the conciliation report is bad in law and the Court cannot take into consideration the conciliation report as evidence. He further contended that the trial Court has failed to appreciate that no single incident is narrated in the petition to the effect that the attitude of the respondent- wife is resulted in the cruelty. He further submitted that the Trial Court was pleased to grant divorce decree relying upon the stray admissions of respondent/RW-1 during the cross examination that the marriage was not at all consummated. He further submitted that the petitioner- husband has not raised the ground of non-consummation of marriage in the petition. The said evidence is without pleading.

17. The petitioner-husband has not taken up the contention in his pleading that there is no consummation of the marriage. The petitioner- husband has not stated anything regarding non- consummation of marriage in his evidence. In the cross-examination of RW-1, it is elicited that there was no physical contact between the petitioner- husband and respondent-wife and there are no issues. Based on the said evidence, the Trial Court came to the conclusion that the marriage of petitioner and respondent is not consummated even though there is no pleading of petitioner to that effect.

18. Trait proposition of law that any amount of evidence without pleading should be eschewed. Therefore, any evidence without pleading with regard to non-consummation of marriage cannot be looked into. Any evidence without pleading is inadmissible. Therefore, the said finding of the Trial Court regarding non-consummation of marriage between the petitioner and the respondent is erroneous.