Tapash Mookherjee, J. - (1.) The present appeals are both against a common judgment dated 27.02.2012 passed in Mat. Suits No. 552/2007 and 538/2007 heard analogously, in the Court of Additional District Judge, 1st Fast Track Court, Paschim Medinipur. The Mat Suit No. 552/2007 was a Suit under Section 25 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 filed by Smt. Janaki, hereinafter described as the Respondent against Sri M. Srinivas Rao hereinafter described as the Appellant and the Mat. Suit No. 538/2007 filed by the aforesaid Appellant was for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 22 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954. The Mat Suit No. 552/2007 has been decreed on contest while the Mat. Suit No. 538/2007 has been dismissed on contest.
(2.) THE facts leading to the present appeals in short, are as follows: - The Mat. Suit No. 552/2007 was filed by the Respondent in which she alleged that the Appellant was her next -door neighbour and she used to get all kinds of assistance from him in respect of filling in forms, affixing photographs thereupon and compliance with other formalities as well, for the purpose of admission in educational institutions and in that way intimacy developed between them. It has been further alleged by the Respondent that sometimes in the month of May, 2006 the Appellant obtained her signatures on some printed forms on the plea that those forms were required for the purpose of her admission in some institution for higher study and because of trust and good faith she signed on all those forms without being aware of their contents. Subsequently the Appellant again came to her and informed that she required to meet a person who was in -charge of the educational institution where she would be admitted in. Again on blind faith she accompanied the appellant to a house at Kharagpur town where some persons including a brother of the Appellant were found present. Thereafter she was taken before an unknown person who was introduced by the Appellant before her to be an officer having authority to allow her admission in an educational institution and on asking by the said unknown person and the Appellant as well, she put her signatures in printed forms without having any opportunity to go through the contents of the forms and subsequently the other persons found present also entered the room and thereafter all of them left for their respective homes. It has been further alleged by the Respondent in her Suit that she passed her Senior Secondary School Examination in April, 2007 and thereafter when she asked the Appellant for necessary arrangements for her admission in the institution for higher study, she received a cool response from the Respondent for which she was surprised and when she asked for the reason of such unexpected behavior, the Appellant disclosed that he was in deep love with her and they were already married. So, she should try for acceptance of their marriage by her family. The Respondent has further alleged in her Suit that after hearing such words from the Appellant she disclosed the matter before her parents and her parents asked the Appellant for cancellation of the registration of the marriage but when the respondent refused to do so she realised that she was cheated and a victim of fraud by the Appellant and hence she filed the Suit for declaration that her alleged marriage with the Appellant was a nullity and the marriage certificate dated 23.06.2006 was an illegal and void document.
(3.) THE Appellant contested the Suit by the Respondent. The Appellant himself also filed the Mat Suit No. 538/2007 against the Respondent praying for a decree for restitution of his conjugal rights. In both the Suits it was the claim by the Appellant that he never cheated or defrauded the Respondent and the Respondent herself signed on the marriage registration forms etc. voluntarily and in her own willingness and consent after knowing the subject matter of the forms very well. It has been further alleged by the Appellant in both the Suits that after their marriage the Respondent lived with him in his house for several months but subsequently because of continuous interference and instigation by his mother -in -law, the Respondent had left his house without his consent and without any valid legal cause. The Appellant further claimed that he was always ready to continue the conjugal life with the Respondent and he is still willing to take back the Respondent in his home to live a happy conjugal life. The Respondent also contested the Suit filed by the Appellant for restitution of conjugal rights.;