- (1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 25.10.2012 vide which the petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short "the Act of 1955") filed by respondent-wife Mamta Rani for dissolution of her marriage with appellant-husband Sunny Kumar, was allowed. Precisely, the relevant facts which need elaboration are as under:- The marriage between appellant Sunny Kumar and respondent Mamta Rani was solemnized on 14.09.2006 at Ludhiana according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. Mamta Rani alleged that the marriage was performed without her consent and the consent of her parents. After marriage, she did not live with Sunny Kumar. The marriage was never consummated and no issue was born/conceived out of the wedlock. Disclosing the backdrop of marriage, Mamta Rani pleaded that she was a student of B.A. Part-II in Khalsa College for Women. She developed friendly relations with Sunny Kumar when she was a minor. After she attained the age of majority in August, 2006, she was allured to marry him. He represented that he was employed as a Coach in Satluj Club, Ludhiana and was having a 'Kothi' in Chander Nagar area and was a Brahmin by caste. He deceitfully obtained her matriculation certificate and identity card in which her date of birth was mentioned and from the college took her to a temple at Jagraon Bridge, Ludhiana. Without disclosing the purpose, he with the help of 2-3 persons forced her to sit in the temple. He then asked the priest to perform the rituals for marriage and threatened her that in case she raised shouts, she and her brother would be eliminated. When the priest started reciting 'Mantras' she managed to slip away from the temple and did not complete the seven steps round the holy fire. As such, no legal and valid marriage was performed between her and Sunny Kumar. However, at the temple a companion of Sunny Kumar took photographs and prepared a movie and also obtained her signatures on some papers without disclosing the contents thereof. It was further alleged by Mamta Rani that Sunny Kumar had filed a petition under Section 9 of the Act of 1955 and obtained an ex-parte decree dated 08.11.2008 from the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana. Because of threat from Sunny Kumar and financial constraints she could not contest the proceedings in the said petition. Consequent to the decree she had no alternative than to get the marriage dissolved by a decree of divorce. A period of more than one year had elapsed since the decree dated 08.11.2008 was passed and as there had been no cohabitation between her and Sunny Kumar, a right had accrued to her to get her marriage dissolved under Section 13(1-A)(ii) of the Act of 1955. Submitting that she apprehends danger to her life at the hands of Sunny Kumar and his companions, Mamta Rani prayed for a decree of divorce.
(2.) The appellant-husband contested the petition. Besides raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability of the petition in the present form, estoppel etc., Sunny Kumar submitted that one year prior to marriage he and Mamta Rani were known to each other. Since they wanted to marry, a proposal was put before their respective parents but as the family members of Mamta Rani did not agree, they solemnized their marriage on 14.09.2006 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies and in the presence of relatives and friends at Shree Sankat Mochan Hanuman Dar-bar temple at Jagraon Bridge near Railway Lines, Ludhiana. The president of the temple issued a certificate of marriage. Mamta Rani did not inform her family members about the marriage out of fear. She stayed with her parents for a few days and then joined his conjugal company w.e.f. 17.09.2006. They cohabited as husband and wife but no child was born out of the wedlock. Brother of Mamta Rani namely, Amit Bhatt felt annoyed and in connivance with the police he and his other family members started interfering in their married life. They filed a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court at Chandigarh in which order dated 19.09.2006 was passed directing Senior Superintendent of Police, Ludhiana to protect the life of the parties. It was further submitted by Sunny Kumar that the matter was compromised thereafter. The parents of Mamta Rani admitted their fault and agreed not to harass them. Due to their changed behaviour, Mamta Rani went to her parental home with the understanding that she will be sent back in a short span. After 4-5 days, Sunny Kumar asked her parents to send her but they kept putting of the matter on one pretext or the other. Thereafter, they started threatening him and Mamta Rani also refused to join his conjugal company under pressure of her parents. He then filed a petition under Section 9 of the Act of 1955 on 08.11.2007 in which Mamta Rani appeared and filed written statement but later did not appear and was proceeded against ex parte on 30.08.2008. The petition was allowed ex parte by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana vide order dated 08.11.2008. Despite the decree for restitution of conjugal rights, Mamta Rani did not join his company till date although a period of more than one year had passed since then. Alleging that Mamta Rani had willfully withdrawn from his society without any reasonable cause and that he still has love and affection for her and is ready and willing to keep and maintain her and further that the petition had been filed with an intention to harass him and his parents, Sunny Kumar prayed for dismissal of the petition.
(3.) Respondent filed rejoinder controverting the objections raised by the appellant and on the pleadings of the parties, following issues were settled:- (1) Whether the petitioner is entitled to a decree of divorce on the basis of ex parte decree obtained by the respondent under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act on 08.11.2008? OPP. (2) Whether petition is not maintainable? OPR. (3) Whether the petitioner is estopped by her own act and conduct to file the present petition? OPR. (4) Relief.;