Muni Lal Verma, J. - (1.) The petition which culminated in this appeal, was moved by Hirmohinder Singh who is husband and now the appellant under section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter called the Act) for annulment of his marriage with Shrimati Sukham Preet Kaur (now respondent No. 1) on the ground that his consent to the said marriage was obtained by force and fraud. Shrimati Sukham Preet tour respondent is the sister of Maharaj Singh who was married to Shrimati Charan Kaur who is sister of the appellant, in the year 1963. The case of Harmohinder Singh was that he was Commissioner Officer, most probably Second Lieutenent, in the Army. Since he wanted to take B.A. (second year) Examination of the Punjab University which was to be hold from April 24, 1970 he had obtained leave with effect from April 13, 1970, and reached hip village Shakrullapur on April 15, 1970. It was on April 24, 1970 when he was proceeding from Ambala City to Sirhind to see the husband of his sister, that he fell ill unexpectedly at Cajpura and was admitted in A.P. Jain hospital there. On April 26, 1970 at about 9. a m. Dr. Harbhajan Singh, his wife Mohan Singh and Amijit Singh mho are related to Shrimati Sukham Preet Kaur, approached him in the aforesaid hospital and represented that his sister was in advanced stage of pregnancy and was admitted in a hospital at Chandigarh and she wanted to see him. Therefore, he accompanied them and reached the house of Dr. Harbhajan Singh in sector 18-B at Chandigarh. it was there that they told him that he was going to be married to Sukham Preet Kaur. He declined, thereupon, Dr. Harbhajan Singh leveller pistol at him and sail that if he did not marry her, he would be shot dead. Thereafter he was married to Shrimati Sukham Preet Kaur through Anani Karaj. He was taken back to Kajpura and left in the hospital from where he had been brought. Therefore, he claimed degree of nullity annulling the aforesaid marriage on the ground teat his consent to the marriage hid bees obtained by force and Gaud. Dr. Harbhajan Singh, his wife, Amarjit Singh and Shrimati Kuldip Kaur wife of Mohan Singh were also impleaded as respondents. All the respondents contested the petition. _ They admitted the factum of marriage but controverted the allegations of force and Gaul and pleaded inter alia that the marriage had been performed with the free consent of appellant and Shrimati Sukham Preet Kaur, and that they lived as husband and wife after the marriage. Hence, the case was tried on the following issue : Where the petitioner is entitled to a decree for voidability of marriage on the ground of force and fraud, as alleged in the petition? Finding the said issue on the negative, the District Judge. Chandigarh, dismissed the petition with costs. Dissatisfied with the said result, Harmohinder Singh has come to this Court in appeal.
(2.) That the marriage had been performed between the appellant and Shrimati Sukham Preet Kaur at Chandigarh, in the house of Dr. Harbhajan Singh on the morning of April 26, 1970, is an admitted fact there are counter versions respecting the appellant's being, consenting party to the said marriage. The appellant's version that he had been defrauded and his consent to the marriage had been obtained by force has been summarised above. The version of Shrimati Sukham Preet Kaur is that the appellant on his visits to his sister at her father's house, had developed intimacy with her which led to courtship and culminated in love affair. Since their parents. especially the father of the appellant, did not approve of marriage between them because of the sister of the appellant having been- married to the brother of Srimati Sukban, Preet Kaur, he (the appellant) had succeeded in arranging the marriage and married her at the house of Dr. Harbhajan Singh who Is married to her sister at Chandigarh Mr. Narinder Singh, learned counsel for the appellant, assailing the finding recorded by the learned District Judge, argued that the evidence had been misread by him and relying on the statements of the appellant and Dr. Khalinder Sarup (P.W. 3) maintained that the appellant's version was correct and since his consent to the marriage had been secured by force. It should be annulled by decree of nullity. I am not in agreement with this contention of the learned counsel. Marriage under Hindu Law is a holy union and cannot be annulled on the mere asking of a spouse or on the basis of allegations which are no more than fairy tale. In this word of materialism when regard for truth is waning day by day, oral testimony especially in Matrimonial disputes, has to be taken as week evidence and can only be accepted if it stands the necessary test of judicial scrutiny. The best way to judge the correctness or otherwise of a verbal version is that it should be tested in the crucible of probabilities. What is patently contrary to human conduct, cannot be probable. When the version put forth by the appellant is so tested, it fails, and sounds more a fiction than reality. He represented to have fallen ill at Eajpura on his way from Ambala City to Sirbind. He as well as Dr. Khalinder Sarup (P. W. 3) while making statements in Court converted silence about the ailment which had taken him at Rajpura. The Copy Exhibit A.1.) of the tied-head ticket reveals that the ailment with which the appellant had suffered, was diagnosed by Dr. Khalirder Sarup as gastroenteritis which means inflammation of the mucous membranes of both stomach and intestine. I do not think that such an ailment can be developed all of a sudden and further I would not subscribe to the view that the said ailment could debar the appellant from proceeding to his destination, i.e Sirhind, which is about 20 Miles/32 Kilometres from Rajpura. He could also return to Ambala Cantonment where there is military hospital and he could get better medical care and treatment there than in A. P. Jain hospital at Rajpura Ambals tantoment is about 16 Miles/26 Kilometres from Rajpura. There was no relation of the appellant at Rajpura, to lookafter him He had his sister's husband at Sirhind. As deposed to by Dr. Prithipal Singh (R. W. 7), and entry in the outdoor patient Register has to be recorded respecting the patient who is admitted as indoor Patient irrespective of the time when he comes to the hospital. He testified that there was no entry regarding Harmobinder Singh's visit to the hospital between April 24, and April 28, 1970 in the Outdoor Patient Register maintained at the A. P. Jain Hospital. In the absence of any entry in the said Outdoor Patient Register indicating chat Harmohinder Siogh had come to the A.P. Jain Hospital, Rajpura for treatment, on April 24, 1970 or reinained there till April 28, 1970, the entries in the Bed head ticket (Exhibit A-1) become suspicious and A as such, no leliance can be placed, much less safely, on the same or on the statement of Dr. Khalinder Sarup. The other circumstances which will be presently discussed, to go a long way to point out that neither the entries in the Bed-head ticket nor the testimony of Dr. Khalinder Sarup is trustworthy and the trial court was, therefore, right in disregarding the same. The Bed-head ticket (copy Exhibit A -1) contains that Harmohinder Singh had improved on April 25, 1970. As such, he could easily obtain in discharge from the hospital and move to Sirhind on that date. He did not do so. On the other hand he preferred to have stayed in the hospital till April 28, 1970. He did not send any information to his father or any other relation about. The alleged unexpected illness as a result of which he had to seek admission as indoor patient in the A.P. Join Hospital it, Rajpura. The record does not disclose as to bow the respondents had come to know that Harmohinder Singh was admitted as indoor patient in the of, aforesaid hospital, on April, 24, 1970 and that he would be available there on the morning of April 26, 1970. Therefore, it sound, highly improbable that Dr. Harbbajan Singh, his wife, Amarjit Singh and Shri mati Kuldip Kaur could have thought of contacting Harmohindet Singh in the aforesaid hospital for bringing him to Chandigarh on April 26, 1970 when Harmohinder Singh could travel to Chandigarh from Rajpura on April 26, 1970. He could also go back to his village Ambala City or Cantt. or Srihind and there was no necessity for him to return to Rajpura much lest to resume his admission at, indoor patient, in the ahovesaid hospital on the evening of April 26, 1970. So, his failure to return to his village or to proceed to Sirhind on the evening of April 26, 1970 or on April 27, 1970 is unexplainable.
(3.) He was commissioned Officer in the Army and was aged twenty three years. Therefore, it Sounds extremely improbable that with the maturity which he possessed Harmohinder Singh could have succumbed to the compulsion or force alleged to have been exercised by Dr. Harbhajan Singh by pointing out pistol at him to marry Shrimati Sukham Preet Kaur.;