ROOPASHRI Vs. KRISHNAGOUDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed assailing the Order dated 18.01.2014 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Jamakhandi whereby, the petition filed by the husband in M.C.No.03/2006 under Section 12(1)(d) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was allowed.

(2.) For the sake of easy and better understanding, in this Order, the parties are referred to as husband and wife. This appeal is filed by the wife who was respondent in M.C.No.3/2006.

(3.) The husband filed M.C.No.3/2006 before the Principal Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Jamakhandi under Section 12(1)(d) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, essentially contending that Roopashri was given in marriage to him on 13.02.2005 and their marriage was solemnized at Basveshwar Temple Kadapatti. He contended that his wife came to the matrimonial home on 14.02.2005 on which day she is stated to have informed him that she had her menstrual period about 8 days prior to her arrival at the matrimonial home and that again she had her periods on 15.02.2005. It is stated that she went to her parents house on 17.02.2005 to observe "sacred month"? and she stayed in her parents house till 27.05.2005. During the course of her stay at her parents house, she underwent medical checkup at Government Hospital on 25.05.2005 and it was found that she had conceived and the doctor who examined her was of the opinion that the pregnancy was 22 weeks old. Thereafter, she delivered twin baby boys on 20.08.2005. He therefore contended that after the date of marriage within six months and five days, his wife had delivered and therefore, he contended that his wife was pregnant by some person other than him, which fact was not known to him and that the wife and her family members had concealed this fact from the husband and his family members. He also alleged that the family members of his wife avoided to give proper explanation and started giving evasive replies. He then requested his wife to undergo medical test for confirmation of the paternity of the children to which she never consented. On the other hand, her parents requested the husband and his family members to settle the issue amicably. He is stated to have issued a notice on 08.12.2005 calling upon his wife to undergo DNA test for confirmation of the paternity of the children. He also offered to undergo medical test and cooperate in ascertaining the truth. Though notice was received by his wife, she did not choose to reply.