Rajendra Nath Mittal, J. - (1.) This appeal has been filed by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge 1st Class dated March 11, 1971 by which his petition under Sec. 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was dismissed.
(2.) The facts of the present case are that the plaintiff was married to the respondent at village Mohkampura, Tehsil and District Amritsar on Nov. 17, 1967. When the plaintiff returned to his village Villa Teja 'Tehsil Batala District Gurdaspur after the marriage and saw the respondent, he found that she was not the same girl who was shown to him at Bombay as the prospective bride. He also came to know that she did not belong to Sikh Jat family and a as not a graduate. He did have sexal cohabitation with the respondent after the marriage. The marriage is void as the respondent and her maternal uncle played a fraud upon the plaintiff He is therefore, entitled to a decree of annulment of marriage. The suit has been contested by the respondent who, Inter alia pleaded that No. 1 fraud was played upon the plaintiff and that after the marriage a demand of dowry in cash was made by the plaintiff from her parents which they did not agree to pay, It is further stated that the present application has been filed as a result of refusing the demand of the plaintiff. She further pleaded that she was a graduate and belonged to a Jat Sikh family of Mohkampura. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues : 1. Whether the marriage between the parties is voidable for the reasons stated in para No. 4 of the petition ? 2. If issue No. 1 is proved whether the petitioner is entitled to get the marriage with the respondent annuled by a decree of nullity ? 3. Whether the petitioner is estoppel from bringing this petition on the grounds alleged in the preliminary objections of the written statement ? 4. Relief. It held that the marriage was not voidable as no fraud had been played upon the plaintiff and that the plaintiff was not estopped from filing the present petition. Consequently, it dismissed the petition of the plaintiff. He has come up is appeal against the judgment and decree of the trial Court to this Court.
(3.) It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant was shown some other girl by the maternal uncle of the respondent. Thus a fraud was played upon him. He, therefore, urges that the finding of the trial Court on that issue is liable to be act aside.;