G.C. Mathur, J. - (1.) THESE are two appeals under Section 39 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954. Admittedly, Ashok Kumar Jain and Smt. Ravi Kanta Devi were married on September 16, 1969. Smt. Ravi Kanta Devi filed, in the court of the District Judge, Meerut, a petition under Section 25 of the Special Marriage Act for annulling the marriage by a decree of nullity. Sometime thereafter Ashok Kumar Jain filed a petition under Section 22 of the Act for restitution of conjugal rights. The two petitions were tried together and evidence was recorded in the wife's petition under Section 25. By a judgment dated March 24, 1972, the Additional District Judge, Meerut, dismissed the wife's petition for annulment of the marriage. By another judgment of the same date he decreed the husband's petition for restitution of conjugal rights. Against the judgments in these two cases the wife has preferred these two appeals, F.A. F.O. No. 232 of 1972 is against the judgment dismissing the wife's petition and F.A.F.O. No. 233 of 1972 is against the judgment in the husband's petition. Since most of the facts are common, it will be convenient to dispose of both the appeals by one judgment.
(2.) ASHOK Kumar Jain and Ravi Kanta were both students of the same College at Baraut in 1967. They, apparently, fell in love with each other and they started exchanging love letters. Ravi Kanta's father, Padam Prasad, was negotiating for the marriage of Ravi Kanta elsewhere. On the morning of September 16, 1969, Ravi Kanta in the company of Ashok Kumar Jain, Mangal Sen Jain and Adish Kumar Jain went in a taxi to Meerut. There they went to the house of Sri Atma Saran Rastogi, Marriage Officer. He took them to his law chambers and there solemnised the marriage under the Special Marriage Act. After sometime Ravi Kanta came back to Baraut to her father's house and has remained there since then. She filed her petition on September 14, 1970, almost a year after the marriage. The grounds on which she sought annunlment of the marriage are contained in paragraphs 2, 3, and 4 of her petition, which read as follow: 2. That the Respondent exercising correction and fraud upon the Petitioner got the alleged marriage solemnised under Section 12 of the Special Marriage Act en 16 -9 -1969 at Meerut. That the said marriage has not been consummated owing to the wilful refusal of the Petitioner to consummate the marriage and as such the said marriage is voidable.
(3.) THAT the formalities that have been observed to perform the alleged marriage, were done under the fear of death and as such consent of the party was not available to the Respondent in the eye of law. The ground mentioned in paragraph 3 is misconceived. Under Clause (i) of Section 25 a marriage may be annulled, if it is not consummated owing to wilful refusal of the Respondent to consummate it. In the present case in paragraph 3 it was not asserted that the marriage was not consummated owing to the wilful refusal of the Respondent but it was asserted that it was not consummated owing to her own wilful refusal. Paragraph 3, therefore, did not make out any ground of annulment. The only ground that remain is coercion and fraud. The petition gives absolutely no particulars of coercion and fraud, nor states the facts which constituted coercion: and fraud. In the written statement the husband complained that the particulars and details of the fraud and coercion had not been given in the petition. Inspite of this no particulars were supplied either by way of application or amendment of the petition. The Additional District Judge examined Ravi Kanta under Order 10 Rule 2 to elicit the particulars of coercion and fraud. She stated that she and Ashok Kumar were studying in the same College, that they developed intimacy, that she wrote one or two love letters to him, that Ashok Kumar threatened to ruin the political life of her father, who was Municipal Commissioner, by publishing those love letters, if she did not marry him and that because of these threats she was forced to get the marriage solemnised. At the trial Ravi Kanta examined only herself on the question of coercion and fraud. On the other hand Ashok Kumar examined himself, Sri Atma Saran Rastogi, Marriage Officer and Dhram Pal Singh an Advocate, who identified Ashok Kumar and Ravi Kanta before the Marriage Officer. Ashok Kumar also produced a large number of love letters written by Ravi Kanta to him. Some of, these letters were written after the marriage. Upon a consideration of the evidence the District Judge came to the conclusion that the Appellant had miserably failed to prove her case of coercion and fraud. 3. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and having gone through the relevant evidence, I am in agreement with the Additional District Judge for the reasons given by him, that the Appellant has not, at all, been able to establish her case of coercion and fraud. The love letters which she wrote after the marriage completely shatter her case of coercion and fraud. It may be mentioned here that in this Court the Appellant made an application under Order 6 Rule 17 Code of Civil Procedure for permission to amend the petition. By this amendment it was sought to introduce particulars of the alleged coercion and fraud. It was urged by the learned Counsel for the Appellant that even if this application is allowed, it would not be necessary to take further evidence, as all the evidence in support of the allegations now sought to be added is already on the record. The application for amendment cannot be allowed. When the Respondent complained about the lack of particulars in his written statement, the Appellant should have supplied the particulars either by the amendment of the petition or by a replication. Again, when she was examined by the Additional District Judge under Order 10 Rule 2 she could have given all the particulars which are now sought to be added. Having twice had the opportunity of giving the particulars of coercion and fraud alleged by her, she is not entitled to a third opportunity. Even if the amendment is allowed it would not help the Appellant, for the evidence produced by her falls far short of establishing coercion and fraud. I have accordingly, rejected the application for amendment. The Appellant has failed to establish any ground for the annulment of the marriage under Section 25. The appeal No. 232 of 1972 is, liable to be dismissed. 4. Ashok Kumar Jain's petition for restitution of conjugal rights was based on the ground that the wife had, without reasonable excuse, withdrawn from his society. He further alleged that the wife's father Padam Prasad Jain, who was made a party to the petition, was detaining his wife and not allowing her to come to him. This petition was resisted by Ravi Kanta on the ground that the marriage was brought about by coercion and fraud. She further alleged that the formalities required under the Special Marriage Act were not fulfilled and, therefore, the marriage was not complete and binding upon the parties. As already observed in the other appeal, Ravi Kanta failed to establish her case of coercion and fraud. In her written statement as he did not specify the formalities required by the Act which were not fulfilled. Even in her statement under Order 10 Rule 2 Code of Civil Procedure she did not give any indication of what those formalities were which were not fulfilled. Before the Additional District Judge it was urged that of the three witnesses who signed the declaration under Section 11 one, namely, Qabool Singh, was not present at the time of the marriage and that his signatures were obtained subsequently. It was urged that on account of this fact the marriage was not a valid marriage and on the basis of such an invalid marriage a decree for restitution of conjugal rights could, not be passed. The Additional District Judge did not accept Ravi Kanta's case and held that Qabool Singh was present at the time of the signing of the declaration under Section 11 and that all formalities had been duly performed and that the marriage was a valid marriage. It may be mentioned that in this appeal also an application has been filed by the Appellant under Order 6 Rule 17, for amendment of the petition filed by her for annulling, the marriage. Since this appeal arises out of the husband's petition for restitution of conjugal rights, I am unable to see how an application for amendment of the petition in the other case can lie in this appeal. The application is incompetent. Otherwise also it is without merits, as the Appellant has had ample opportunity before the court below to supply particulars and details but did not avail of the same. The application is rejected.;