PARMINDER CHARAN SINGH Vs. HARJIT KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HUSBAND Dr. Parminder Charan Singh has filed the present appeal No. 48-M of 1999 and it has been directed against the judgment dated 22.2.1999 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Chandigarh, who dismissed the petition of the petitioner-appellant under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for the annulment of marriage on the ground of fraud committed upon him by the respondent-Harjit Kaur.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that parties were married on 28.1.1990 according to the Hindu Rites and Ceremonies (Sikh) at Local Gurdwara at Delhi. It was registered with the Registrar of Marriages on 30.1.1990. The marriage was initially consumated at Delhi and other parts of the country. Thereafter, the appellant went to Germany in February, 1990. The respondent also joined the appellant in Germany in March, 1990.

(3.) IN the month of July, 1991, the mother of the respondent also went to Germany and stayed in the house of the appellant. A son was born on 14.7.1991 to the respondent. The behaviour of the respondent thereafter became very violent, outrageous and intolerable. The mother of the respondent, after staying there for 3 months came back to India. In February, 1992, the respondent along with her child and without informing the appellant and without any reasons surreptitiously left the appellant causing great mental tension to him. After strenuous efforts and mental sufferings, the appellant came to know that she has come to India and staying with her parents in Chandigarh. Then the efforts of the appellant, who had specially came to India to make her agreeable to live with her husband as a dutiful wife and like a respectable person, had, however, no effect on the respondent as well as her parents. The appellant sometimes in the end of October, 1992, got a hint that the respondent before the present marriage was not unmarried. After a lot of investigations, the appellant found out that the respondent was married with another person, before her present marriage, but he was not in possession of the documents or the name and address of the person, to whom she was married. The appellant started more deeply probing this fact and found that the respondent was earlier married with Sanjit Singh of Meerut, U.P. The petitioner's relations contacted Sanjit Singh in June, 1993, who confirmed this fact. Sanjit Singh also told that the respondent and her father had filed frivolous cases and extorted Rs. 6 lacs for obtaining divorce by mutual consent.