Joytosh Banerjee, J. - (1.)The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 27.3.2001 passed by Additional District Judge, 10th Court, 24-Parganas now known as 24-Pargahas South through which the learned Judge dismissed the Matrimonial Suit No. 75 of 1999. The relevant facts leading to the instant appeal are as follows :- The petitionen Smt. Tamali Bhattacharjee filed the petition under section 25 of the Special Marriage Act for annulment of marriage alleging, inter alia, that both the parties of the matrimonial suit were students of coaching class and through them their respective families also became acquainted and close with each other. In the month of June,' 1999 the respondent informed the petitioner that a party would be given by the respondent at Dhakuria. The petitioner with one of her friends attended that said party wherein some of the friends of the respondents were also present. There was one lady who took signatures of all of them in a Khata. It is alleged that the signatures of all the persons were taken in such a mechanical way that the petitioner or her friend did not get any scope to enquire about the reason for such signatures. On 9th July, 1999 the respondent asked the petitioner to come to the house of the respondent but the petitioner refused the same. Then the respondent disclosed that he had every right to bring the petitioner to his house as the petitioner was his legally married wife. At this, a strong suspicion arose in the mind of the petitioner and she reported the matter to her parents thereafter they enquired the matter and ultimately came to know on 14th July, 1999 that a fake marriage had been held on 21st June, 1999 before the marriage officer for C.M.C. District at 44, Dhakuria Station Road, Calcutta-700 031 between the parties of the suit. It is the further allegation that the petitioner had no knowledge about the notice of such marriage and she could not recollect how the signature on the notice was procured by the respondent and the petitioner had no consent to such marriage at any point of time. No solemnization of the purported marriage was ever held. Through an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the C.P. Code the petitioner amended her application and the relevant portion added made an allegation that the conduct on the part of the respondent clearly went to show that the respondent wilfully refused to consume the marriage and on that score the petitioner was also entitled to a decree of nullity of the said marriage.
(2.)The respondent, Samik Baidya, contested the suit on a written statement denying all the material allegations raised. His specific allegation in the written statement was that the petitioner on different pretex influenced the respondent for solemnisation of the marriage. It was alleged further that the petitioner made misrepresentation to the respondent so as to get solemnisation of the marriage between the parties as initially respondent did not agree to the proposal of the petitioner regarding marriage. But the respondent agreed to marry the petitioner on the basis of her representation that the petitioner's father and brother got good connection with different companies and if the respondent married the petitioner in that event the respondent might find a service in a company with their help.
(3.)The learned Court below at the trial of the matrimonial suit raised certain issues including the issue touching the question whether petitioner was entitled to get a decree of nullity of marriage as prayed for and on consideration of the evidence on record and other material facts and circumstances came to a conclusion that the application filed by the petitioner for the purpose of getting the marriage declared as null and void had no merit and accordingly dismissed the suit.
;