S.P.GOYAL, J. - (1.) THIS is an appeal against the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh, dated September 30, 1977, whereby the marriage between the parties was annulled by a decree of nullity.
(2.) THE parties were married at village Burail on April 14, 1976, according to Sikh rites. Six months thereafter, Narinder Singh, the husband, moved this petition under section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter called the Act) for annulment of his marriage on the ground that his consent to the marriage with the appellant was obtained by fraud. The case set up by the petitioner at the trial was that Amin Singh uncle of the appellant with whom she was residing, was introduced to his father, Surjit Singh and uncle Sarup Singh through a distant relation of theirs, Kartar Singh, who proposed to get the petitioner married to a girl. With a view to judging the suitability of the girl, the petitioner and his uncle Sarup Singh went to Amin Singh's place at village Burail and when they were sitting near his saw -mill, a good looking girl was shown to them from a distance. The girl was approved by the petitioner and his uncle and the betrothal ceremony took place 2/3 days thereafter, at village Lakhnaur at the house of the father of the petitioner. The marriage was performed 2/2 -1/2 months thereafter, at village Burail and at the time of Anandkaraj the girl observed parda and there was, therefore, no occasion for the petitioner to know if the girl with whom the Anandkaraj was performed was the same girl which was approved by him or not. The marriage party along with girl reached his village in the evening and when the bride was seen by the women folk, there was a murmuring that the girl has a squint in her eye and seven teeth were missing. The petitioner had the occasion to see the girl next morning at about 5 A.M. when he discovered that she was not the girl which he had approved for marriage. Consequently, he did not consummate the marriage and conveyed this fact to his uncle. Respectables of the village were then called including Ujjagar Singh, Sarpanch and Smt. Tej Kaur, lady Panch and on their advice the girl was sent back with her brother. The appellant before me contested the petition and her case at the trial was that two years prior to the marriage, she resided with her uncle Amin Singh at Chandigarh in Sector 30 and father and uncle of the petitioner were on visiting terms with her uncle. The petitioner was learning type -writing and shorthand at Chandigarh in those days and on his way back he had been visiting the house of Amin Singh and meeting her. Matrimonial alliance between the parties was finalised by her uncle with Sarup Singh uncle of the petitioner and betrothal ceremony took place at village Lakhnaur at the house of the petitioner's father on May 5, 1974. Six months thereafter, she along with her uncle shifted their residence to village Burail where on account of the fall of a roof she received a number of injuries and lost her four teeth. The other two teeth which had become shaky were extracted by Dr. Chaudhry, Dental Surgeon working in Sector 20, Chandigarh. The marriage was performed after two years of the betrothal ceremony in the broad daylight at 10 A.M. when the boy and his family members had full opportunity to see her but no objection was raised by them at that time. After marriage she stayed with the petitioner for 3/4 months and during that period, they had been cohabiting with each months and during that period, they had been cohabiting with each other and the marriage consummated. Break in their relation, according to her, was caused by her inability to meet the demands of the boy and his family to bring more golden ornaments for him and his father.
(3.) THE two issues contested between the parties at the trial were as to whether the consent of the petitioner to the marriage was obtained by fraud, and if so, whether the petitioner had lived with the respondent after the fraud had been discovered. The petitioner, in support of his case, gave his own statement and examined 6 other persons including Ujjagar Singh, Sarpanch P.W. 2, Smt. Tej Kaur, Lady Panch, P.W. 23, and Sarup Singh P.W. 6. He also took photographs, Exhibits P 1 and P 2 at the time of the performance of the marriage ceremony. Evidence produced by the respondent consisted of her own statement and the statements of 8 witnesses who supported her version detailed above. The trial Court after appreciating evidence and taking into consideration the attending circumstances answered both the issues in favour of the petitioner and annulled the marriage which led to the filing of the present appeal by the wife.;