TAPAN KUMAR DUTT,J. - (1.) THIS Court has heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties. The facts of the case, briefly, are as follows: The petitioner/respondent filed a suit against the opposite party/appellant being Matrimonial Suit No.71 of 2006 in the Court of the learned District Judge, Hooghly, at Chinsurah on 01.02.2006. The petitioner/respondent prayed in the said suit for a decree of nullity/annulment of marriage which was registered on 05.01.1998 under the Special Marriage Act, 1954 between the appellant and the respondent.
(2.) THE respondent alleged in her plaint that she was not acquainted with the appellant before July 1997 but thereafter she was acquainted with the appellant through the proforma respondent. It has been alleged in the plaint that all of a sudden on 22.10.1997 the proforma respondent came to the house of the respondent and requested the respondent to sign on some blank forms and the respondent on good faith plainly signed on those blank forms even though the contents of such forms were unknown to the respondent. The further case of the respondent was that on 04.01.1998 the proforma respondent came again with some blank forms for the respondent to sign for canceling and withdrawing the previous forms and the respondent was threatened by the proforma respondent that if the respondent did not sign those forms the affair would come to the knowledge of the respondent's father. It has been alleged in the plaint that on 05.01.1998 while the respondent was on the way to deposit her father's electricity bill the appellant along with the proforma respondent and some other unknown persons picked up the respondent and went to the registration office for withdrawing of certain forms but instead of withdrawing such forms the appellant along with his associates including the proforma respondent did the registration of marriage illegally practicing fraud on the respondent. The respondent has alleged in her plaint that on 07.02.1998 the proforma respondent disclosed that the respondent had put her signature on the notice of marriage and ultimately on 05.01.1998 the appellant has got the marriage with the respondent registered and for the first time the respondent came to learn with the appellant is not a Hindu but a Muslim. The further allegation in the plaint is that the proforma respondent had disclosed that she had put her signature as witness No.3 during the registration of the marriage but the proforma respondent has described herself as Smt. Ankita Banerjee. It is the respondent's case that she never had any intention to marry the appellant and as such there was no marriage at all on 05.01.1998 and the appellant and the respondent have never lived a single night together as husband and wife. The respondent has also alleged in the plaint that after the registration of the alleged marriage the appellant and the respondent used to reside in their respective houses and, practically, the appellant in collusion with the proforma respondent and his other associates by practicing fraud and undue influence and coercion upon the respondent has managed to get the registration done under the Special Marriage Act. The respondent's case was that there was no co -habitation between the appellant and the respondent and the alleged marriage between the appellant and the respondent is a voidable one. The respondent has alleged that owing to misconception of law the respondent had earlier filed title suit No.74 of 1998 before a Civil Court for declaration and injunction and in such suit the respondent prayed, inter alia, for a decree declaring that the marriage certificate was a void one and a paper transaction and was not acted upon and also a decree for declaring that no marriage was held on 05.01.1998. It appears from the plaint that the appellant had challenged the maintainability of such suit and the learned Trial Court by judgement dated 14.11.2002 dismissed the said suit on the ground that the said Trial Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit. The respondent has alleged that being misguided she filed title appeal No. 12 of 2003 challenging the aforesaid judgement dated 14.11.2002 passed in the said T.S. 74 of 1998 but the said title appeal was also dismissed by the learned First Appellate Court concerned on 26.09.2005. The respondent contended in the plaint that within one year from the date of her knowledge about the aforesaid alleged fraud in the matter of the alleged registration of the marriage she started the legal proceeding and, therefore, the time taken for pursuing the aforesaid suit and the appeal should be excluded while considering the question of limitation in filing the present suit. The proforma respondent contested the suit by filing a written statement wherein the proforma respondent denied the material allegations made in the plaint. The proforma respondent stated in the written statement that the proforma respondent Anjana Pal is also known as Ankita Banerjee and similarly Anil Pal and Ashim Banerjee is also one and the same person. The proforma respondent stated in the written statement that the proforma respondent is a cousin sister of the respondent and the proforma respondent knew that the respondent loved the appellant for years together prior to their marriage and they used to go to pleasure trips outside and also locally they used to see cinema and also went did marketing at Calcutta. The proforma respondent further stated in the written statement that the relationship between the appellant and the respondent has been known to the locality and members of both the families and the appellant and the respondent and the witnesses put their respective signatures at the time of registration of the marriage. The proforma respondent further stated that the respondent also signed the notice of marriage knowing the contents of the notice.
(3.) THE appellant contested the suit by filing a written statement and stated, inter alia, that the suit is not maintainable and the respondent cannot deny the registration of marriage as she on her own signed and took oath before the Registrar and accepted the appellant as her husband. The appellant stated in his pleadings that the appellant and the respondent were acquainted with each other since 1993. The appellant stated in the written statement that in the earlier suit, that is, T.S. 74 of 1998 the respondent had stated a different story as regards her going to the office of the Marriage Registrar and the subsequent registration of marriage. The appellant pleaded that the appellant and the respondent travelled many places together as husband and wife and lived under the same roof and also there was co -habitation between the appellant and the respondent. The appellant pleaded that there was no force or fraud from either of the parties in the matter of marriage and the marriage was an outcome of the pre -marriage love. In the written statement the appellant further stated that the respondent was also known as 'Manu' and that the appellant and the respondent had travelled hither and thither and stayed overnight sometimes at Digha, Kamarpukur, Jairambati, Nainital, Ranikhet, Almora and Lucknow, and the members of both the families used to visit the house of each other. The appellant has also stated in the written statement that there are several love letters exchanged between the appellant and the respondent. The appellant pleaded that at one point of time the respondent's father restricted the movement of the respondent when the respondent put pressure upon the appellant to have a legal marriage and compelled the appellant to sign and submit notice of marriage under the Special Marriage Act and for such purpose the respondent procured ration card, admit card to prove her age before the Marriage Registrar. It has been further pleaded in the written statement that on the date of marriage as per of the demand of the respondent, the appellant presented a golden chain and a ring to the respondent and in connection with the registration of marriage there was neither any force nor fraud nor any undue influence. The registration of marriage was a result of free will and volition of the appellant and the respondent. The appellant prayed for dismissal of the suit.;