Adarsh Kumar Goel, J. - (1.) THIS appeal has been preferred against the dismissal of a petition for divorce filed by the Appellant -wife under Section 13(2) (iv) of the Hindu Marriage Act on 25.1.1996 stating that her marriage was solemnised before about ten years, before filing of the petition she attained the age of 15 years and that she had repudiated the marriage after attaining the age of 15 years but before attaining the age of 18 years. The petition was contested. The trial Court dismissed the petition holding that there were contradictions in the statements of the witnesses who appeared on behalf of the Appellant -wife and the wife appeared to be 25 years by appearance (judgment of the trial Court dated 16.5.1997).
(2.) THE matter was referred to Lok Adalat but on finding that there was no possibility of compromise, the matter was again sent back to High Court for the decision on merits. Learned Counsel for the Appellant -wife has submitted that in the divorce petition ingredients of Section 13(2) (iv) have been clearly stated and the same have been supported in the oral evidence which has not been rebutted by the Respondent -husband. He submitted that it was clear from the record that the Appellant -wife was born about 15 years prior to the filing of the petition (i.e. prior to 25.1.1996) and marriage took place about 10 years prior to the filing of the petition. Learned Counsel for the Respondent -husband submitted that in the absence of birth certificate, school record or medical examination, the Appellant -wife's version should be rejected particularly when there are contradictions in the statement of the Appellant -wife and her mother. He further submitted that from the statements of the mother, the date of repudiation will be after attaining the majority. He further submitted that according to the Appellant -wife, she was 15 years and 3 months at the time of filing of the petition and the repudiation should be taken to be the date of filing of the petition.
(3.) I have heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the record. In my view, the Appellant -wife has been able to prove that at the time of marriage, she was below 15 years and she repudiated the marriage before attaining the age of majority. No doubt, the Appellant -wife, has been able to prove that at the time of marriage, she was below 15 years and she repudiated the marriage before attaining the age of majority. No doubt, the Appellant -wife has not produced any documentary evidence as rightly submitted by the Learned Counsel for the Respondent -husband. The Respondent -husband was also free to produce such evidence as he liked and in a case of this nature, the evidence produced by the Appellant -wife in the absence of any rebuttal by the Respondent -husband can be accepted even if there may be contradictions in the oral testimony when the date of birth is mentioned by memory. Having regard to the spirit of law which confers a right on the Appellant -wife who at the time of marriage was below the age of 15 years to repudiate the marriage, wife's right has to be honoured. Wife's case that she was below 15 years of age is fully supported by the circumstances of the case, particularly age assessed by the trial Court by appearance. The oral evidence which is supported by the circumstances proves that the Appellant -wife was below 15 yeas at the time of marriage Learned Counsel for the Appellant -wife has stated that marriage took place in the year 1987 Learned Counsel for the Respondent -husband is unable to dispute the year of marriage According to the view of the trial Court, the age of the Appellant -wife was below 15 years at the time of marriage In this view of the matter, finding recorded by the trial Court that wife was not able to prove that she was below 15 cannot be sustained The wife has not lived with the husband for a day even after attaining majority She has, thus, repudiated the marriage before becoming(sic) major. The same is set aside;