Bhandari, J. - (1.) THIS is a petition for a declaration of nullity of marriage filed by Smt. Parbati Mukerjee of New Delhi against her husband Samrendra Nath Rakshit on the grounds that she was below 21 years of age on the date of her marriage, that the consent of her father or guardian was not obtained and that the purported marriage is therefore void ab initio. The learned District Judge granted the decree prayed for and has referred the case of the Petitioner to this Court under the provisions of Section 17, Divorce Act. No appearance has been put in on behalf of the husband even though he was duly served.
(2.) IT is alleged on behalf of the Petitioner that the Respondent who was a private tutor of the Petitioner represented to her that he was holding the post of an Assistant in the Govt. of India and lured her to marry him. The Petitioner being of an impressionable age presented an application to the Registrar of Marriages, Delhi, desiring that she may be married to the Respondent. The matter was kept a closely guarded secret and neither the and father nor the mother nor any of the relations of the Petitioner were informed of the adventure on which she was about to embark. On 20 -12 -1948 she went through the marriage ceremony with the Respondent under the provisions of the Special Marriage Act. Immediately after the marriage she went back to live with her parents where she was already residing and the Respondent went back to his own house. Parbati's parents did not approve of the marriage and the present suit for declaration was brought on the grounds to which a reference has already been made. The marriage was never consummated. The first point alleged on behalf of the Petitioner is that she was just a little over twenty years of age on 20 -12 -1948 and thus obviously a minor when the marriage was performed. Her birth certificate has been produced and it corroborates this allegation. According to this certificate (Ex. R/2) the Petitioner was born on 24 -11 -1928. This certificate is in a measure supported by the school certificate (Ex. R/1) which shows that on 18 -4 -1989 she was ten years and five months old. This evidence leaves no doubt in my mind that the age of the Petitioner at the material date is beyond dispute. Indeed, the counsel for the Respondent admitted in the Court below that the Petitioner was in fact below twenty one years of age on the date of her marriage this fact alone is sufficient to invalidate the marriage unless it can be shown that the marriage was performed with the consent of the father.
(3.) THE evidence which has been produced in this case satisfies me that the consent of the father was not obtained. (After considering evidence his Lordship proceeded:) The Respondent has endeavoured to show that three of his friends who were present at the wedding had obtained the consent of the father but their evidence was not accepted by the learned District Judge and I can see no reason for holding that they are telling the truth.;