Sibghat Ullah Khan, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition arises out of an order passed in Marriage Petition No. 823 of 2011, Ajit Kumar v. Smt. Sonam, which is pending before Civil Judge (S.D.), Aligarh. Copy of the plaint is Annexure -1 to the writ petition. It was filed on 16.5.2011. Age of the plaintiff was shown to be 15 years and age of the defendant 14 years. Plaintiff sued through his father, Ashok Kumar. Defendant was sued through her father Ramesh Chand. The case has been filed under Section 11, Hindu Marriage Act. According to High School Certificate, date of birth of petitioner is 12.6.1995. In para -1 of the plaint, it is mentioned that marriage took place on 8.3.2011. In para -2, it is mentioned that marriage was solemnized without consent of the plaintiff and Ramesh Chand father of the defendant committed fraud and got solemnized the marriage between him and his daughter Sonam. It has specifically been stated that fraud was that plaintiff was minor. In para -3 of the plaint in the last sentence it is mentioned that father of the plaintiff married his son, the plaintiff with the defendant. It clearly means that plaintiff, who is being sued through his father Ashok Kumar is admitting the fraud of his father. Virtually Ashok Kumar is admitting his own fraud. The defendant denied the minority of the parties and stated that plaintiff was more than 21 years old at the time of marriage and defendant was more than 18 years of age as required by law. Defendant filed an application that the ages of the parties should be got determined by the C.M.O. The trial Court/Additional Civil Judge (S.D.)/A.C.J.M. Court No. 5, Aligarh rejected the said application on 19.9.2012 Against the said order Civil Revision No. 82 of 2012 was filed. District Judge, Aligarh through order dated 15.12.2012 dismissed the revision, hence this writ petition. The trial court held that the question of examination of parties by the C.M.O. might be considered afterwards. The prayer has been rejected only at this stage and not finally. The revisional court has held that as the entire controversy revolves around age of parties hence this issue cannot be decided as preliminary Issue.
(2.) I do not find any error in the impugned orders. The question of age will be decided after the evidence. However, it is quite clear that according to the own allegations of the plaintiff through is father, Ashok Kumar, Ashok Kumar was equal partner in the fraud. Accordingly, on this basis, F.I.R. shall be lodged under relevant sections of I.P.C. against Ashok Kumar for committing the fraud. The trial court shall issue necessary directions in this regard. With the above observations, writ petition is disposed of.;