M.S.LIBERHAN, J. - (1.) THIS appeal arises out of the judgment dated 25. 5. 1995 declining divorce to the appellant-wife under Section 13 (2) (iv) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
(2.) THE appellant (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner) claimed divorce, inter alia, contending that she was 8 years old when she was married to the respondent. On attaining the age of 15 years and before completing 18 years she repudiated the marriage. The respondent-husband disputed the factum of repudiation as well as the age of the petitioner. The facts, found by the Trial Court, not disputed before us during the course of arguments, apart from their being discernible on perusing the record are: Petitioner was born on 20. 3. 1975. This fact is corroborated by her school leaving certificate Ex. P1, proved by AW. I Shri Bhale Ram and by her mother A. W. 3 Smt. Tulsa. The petitioner herself stated so while appearing in the witness- box as AW. 2. It appears that by clerical error, in the finding arrived at by the Trial Court the date of birth instead of 20. 3. 1975 has been recorded as 20. 7. 1975. The petition for divorce was filed on 16. 7. 1990. The petitioner was 15 years and 4 months old at the time of filing the petition. Petitioner's statement repudiating her marriage was recorded on 30. 11. 1990 in exparte proceedings. Again on setting aside the ex parte proceedings, her statement was recorded on 12. 2. 1993. The Trial Court observed, that the petitioner in her statement had stated, at the time of repudiation of marriage, her brother was present, who was not examined as a witness. Mother of the petitioner stated to be present at the time of repudiation. In view of the stand taken by mother of the petitioner and non-examination of Prithi- brother of petitioner, the factum of repudiation of marriage was not accepted by the Trial Court. It was further found, that in view of the averments made by the petitioner in paragraph 3 of the petition to the effect that "the petitioner has not co-habited since 21. 6. 1984 as the petitioner was minor and is still minor and her age at the time of filing of the petition is 14 years. No child was born out of their wed-lock, the repudiation cannot be held to be valid. Petition for divorce was declined
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant vehemently argued, in view of the admitted facts viz. the petitioner was born on 20. 3. 1975 and was married on 21. 6. 1984 at the age of 8 years 8 months; petition for divorce being filed on 16. 7. 1990 and decree for divorce being declined on 28. 5. 1993, it cannot be held that there was no valid repudiation of marriage. It was urged that Section 13 (2) (iv) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 envisages the repudiation of marriage by a spouse if the same was solemnised before attaining the age of 15 years. Petitioner in this case did repudiate the marriage after attaining that age but before attaining the age of 18 years. This special right was conferred under the Act on a girl who has been married before the age of 15 years. No particular form for repudiation of marriage has been provided. Hindu Marriage Act, being a social legislation with wide spectrum of consequences on human lives should be construed liberally.;