- (1.) The above appeal was preferred against the judgment and decree dated 27th December 2006 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court at Kolkata. By the impugned judgment and decree learned trial Judge has declared that the marriage between the Appellant and the Respondent solemnized on 27th December 2006 is null and void.
(2.) The above matrimonial action was initially brought by the Respondent/Petitioner in the Court of the District & Sessions Judge, Delhi which was registered as H.M.A.P. Case No. 729 of 2002. The said suit was filed under Section 12(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter as the said Act) alternatively for dissolution of marriage under Section 13(i)(a) of the said Act.
(3.) The short fact leading to filing of the suit is stated hereunder: The marriage between the couple was negotiated one and the negotiation was preceded by an advertisement in National Daily in the newspaper in English on 23rd August 1998 issued by the father of husband/Respondent asking for a suitable bride who would be well educated, fair, very beautiful, Brahmin girl, not exceeding age of 24 and height not less than 160 c.m. very good family. The said advertisement was responded by the father of the Appellant by letter dated 25th August 1998 disclosing amongst others that the requirements in the said advertisement are fulfilled by his daughter and his family is a conservative Brahmin family maintaining strict discipline in all sphere of life. It is also disclosed that the family of the Appellant's father is a middle class one and has been maintaining social value and culture. After the said response there has been negotiation with mutual visits of their respective members of the families for long 18 months. In course of discussion everything was disclosed about the bride but very essential and material things which is discussed later on were not disclosed. On 25th January, 2000 the couple were married in accordance with the Hindu rites and ceremonies followed by immediate registration under the said Act 1955. At the time of registration in the declaration form with regard to the status of the bride the word 'divorcee' and 'widow' were struck out which represented and/or meant the girl was unmarried. After marriage the married couple returned to Delhi being the matrimonial home. However, barely after one month of stay the Appellant started disliking matrimonial house. She started writing letters to her parents expressing her unwillingness to stay in Delhi complaining many things against parents of the Respondent. After a few months thereafter, July 2000 there has been discernable manifestation of unwillingness of the Appellant to continue with the marital life, and expressed her desire to leave Delhi as early as possible. However, it was not disclosed the reasons for her unwillingness. Everything was kept in dark. The Appellant refused to discharge her conjugal obligation and started behaving in such a manner that the parents as well as the Respondent were absolutely surprised and shocked. During three months she perpetrated mental cruelty and she refused to meet the Respondent's reasonable conjugal need. She had been persistently refusing without any reason whatsoever to have cohabitation and as a result the said marriage was not consummated. She frequently wrote letters to her parents making false allegation of alleged mental torture, demand of dowries against the Petitioner/Respondent and his parent. She expressed in complete breach of marital obligation her intention to leave matrimonial home to join services. Despite repeated entreatment and persuasion the Appellant did not pay heed to the Respondent's words. The Respondent/husband tried to persuade even cajole unsuccessfully the Appellant in all possible manner so that normal conjugal life could be led. The Appellant's parent during the month of August 2001 visited Delhi however, they could not help at all to solve the problem. This problem between the couple continued and the act of mental cruelty reached its climax when the husband/Respondent fell sick and he was diagonized suffering from Tuberculosis. At that juncture even the Appellant decided to leave Delhi for Calcutta and the Respondent had to accompany her despite illness in November 2001. During train journey the Appellant for the first time divulged that her father forced her to leave one Sudip and to marry Respondent. On reaching Calcutta the Respondent accompanied Appellant to reach her at her father's place. The Respondent enquired his father-in-law about Sudip however, no answer was given by him. The Respondent/husband however did not stay at her father's place and he moved to a hotel and stayed there. Since then the Respondent/husband severed all connections with the Appellant and with in-laws and never visited their house. Thereafter the Respondent being utterly shocked dejected as he was kept completely in dark about the identity of Sudip and the relationship of the Appellant with him, he came back Delhi by the next train. Having failed to ascertain any information about the identity of Sudip vis-?-vis relationship with the Appellant which was disclosed during the train journey he engaged a private detective agency to find out and for the first time in or about December 2001 it was discovered that there had been previous marriage of Appellant with Sudip. At the time of the marriage or subsequently thereafter there has been no disclosure of such fact. Thereafter further information and enquiry revealed that earlier marriage was dissolved by decree of annulment almost by consent. This fact was also never disclosed either at the time of marriage or subsequently.;