- (1.) Raju (husband) has filed the instant appeal against the judgment and decree dated 8.8.2011, passed by the court of Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Narnaul, whereby on the petition filed by Pintu (respondent No.1 herein), marriage between the appellant and respondent No.1 has been dissolved by a decree of divorce under Section 13 (2) (iv) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Though there is delay of 19 days in re-filing this appeal and the appellant has filed an application (CM No. 1043-CII of 2012) for condoning the delay, but we have heard learned counsel for the appellant on merits and gone through the impugned order.FAO No. M-9 of 2012 -2- In this case, the respondent-wife is victim of the child marriage. When she was only 14 years 2 months and 19 days of age, her marriage was performed with the appellant on 2.2.2006, the day on which the marriage of her sister Gulab Rai (respondent No.2) was also performed with Jile Singh (brother of the appellant). Though the marriage was consummated on 16.3.2008, but after more than three years of the marriage, i.e. on 8.10.2009, respondent No.1 repudiated the marriage, and on 29.7.2010, she filed a petition for dissolution of marriage on the grounds of adultery, cruelty and repudiation of marriage, under Sections 13 (1) (i), 13 (1) (ia) and 13 (2) (iv) of the Act, respectively.
(2.) Though the appellant-husband contested the petition, but he failed to pay interim maintenance and litigation expenses to the respondentwife, as fixed by the trial court. Therefore, his defence was struck off. Ultimately, the trial court, vide the impugned judgment and decree, dissolved the marriage under Section 13 (2) (iv) of the Act after holding that though the respondent-wife has failed to prove the alleged adultery and cruelty, but she has successfully established that her date of birth is 14.11.1991 and thus, at the time of her marriage on 2.2.2006, she was below 15 years of age; and before attaining the age of eighteen years, she repudiated the marriage on 8.10.2009.
(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant-husband has raised two submissions. Firstly, that except the statement of the respondent-wife that she has repudiated the marriage on 8.10.2009, there is no other evidence toFAO No. M-9 of 2012 -3- corroborate her version, therefore, she has failed to establish the repudiation of the marriage before attaining the age of eighteen years. Secondly, learned counsel submits that the respondent-wife has allegedly repudiated the marriage on the foundation that her husband was living in adultery and when she objected to it, the appellant-husband gave beatings to her. But she has failed to establish the alleged adultery and cruelty, therefore, she has failed to prove the very foundation of repudiation of the marriage. Thus, according to the learned counsel, the trial court has committed grave illegality while dissolving the marriage on the ground of its repudiation. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, we do not find any merit in the aforesaid submissions. The fact that marriage between the appellant and the respondent-wife was solemnized on 2.2.2006 has not been disputed. The School Leaving Certificate of the respondent-wife was proved before the trial court as Ex.PW4/A, according to which her date of birth is 14.11.1991. The said certificate was proved by PW.4 Surender Singh, Headmaster, Government Middle School, Katkai, Tehsil Narnaul. Thus, on the basis of this document, which has not been controverted by any other evidence, in our opinion, the trial court has rightly held that on the date of her marriage on 2.2.2006, the respondent-wife was below fifteen years of age. Regarding repudiation, in her statement before the court, she has categorically stated that keeping in view the conduct of her husband, she had repudiated her marriage with the appellant-husband on 8.10.2009, i.e. after attaining the age of fifteen years but before attaining the age ofFAO No. M-9 of 2012 -4- eighteen years. In this regard, the learned trial court has observed that repudiation of the marriage has no where been challenged by the respondents. Even no suggestion has been put by the appellant-husband to the respondent-wife in her cross examination that she has not repudiated her marriage on 8.10.2009. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant that mere statement of the minor to the effect that she repudiated the marriage is not sufficient and some corroborative evidence must be there, cannot be accepted. We are of the opinion that the categoric statement of the wife in the court that she had repudiated her marriage on 8.10.2009, which has not been challenged by the appellant-husband even by putting suggestion to her, is sufficient to prove the repudiation of marriage and no further corroboration is required. If a minor wife has repudiated her marriage after attaining the age of fifteen years but before attaining the age of eighteen years, then she is entitle to get her marriage dissolved by a decree of divorce under Section 13 (2) (iv) of the Act.;