HARI SHANKAR PRASAD, J. - (1.) THIS appeal, at the instance of the appellant, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 9.2.2000 passed in Matrimonial (Title) Suit No. 57/92, whereby and where -under the learned 4th Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi, dismissed the suit.
(2.) THE complainant (hereinafter referred to as "the appellant") brought a suit for annulment of marriage vide Matrimonial Title Suit No. 57/92 under Section 12(1)(d) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on the ground that at the time of the marriage the respondent -wife pregnant by some person other than the appellant but thereafter the appellant amended the suit and added additional grounds for annulment of marriage under Section 13(1)(i -a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and the prayer was allowed. The appellant thereafter added another ground of divorce as cruelty being meted out with the appellant by his respondent -wife. On the other hand, the case of the appellant - plaintiff is that the marriage between him and the respondent was solemnized on 9.3.1991 and after the marriage the respondent came to the house of the appellant but three days thereafter she was taken back to her parent 'shouse and thereafter she did not return. Further case of the appellant is that in October, 1991 appellant came to know that respondent has given birth to a matured child and on further investigation and inquiry he came to know that on 13.7.1991 respondent -wife has given birth to a male child in a nursing home. Further case of the appellant is that the respondent was made pregnant by a person other than the appellant before the marriage, which fact was not disclosed by her and this amounted to cruelty, The respondent appeared in the case and challenged the maintainability of the case on the ground of limitation. The respondent also denied all the allegations made by the appellant but she admitted that due to miscarriage she was taken to the nursing home on 12.7.1991 by the appellant himself. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned Court below framed the following issues : - - (i) Is the application maintainable? (ii) Whether the applicant has got a valid cause of action for the suit? (iii) Whether marriage of the applicant with respondent consummated? (iv) Whether the respondent was carrying pregnancy from any person other than the applicant at the time of their marriage? (v) Whether the marriage of the applicant with respondent took place due to act of fraud played by respondent 'sparents? (vi) Whether the marriage of the applicant with the respondent is liable to be annulled by a decree of divorce? (vii) To what other relief or reliefs, the applicant is entitled to -
(3.) ISSUE Nos. 3, 4 and 5 were decided in favour of the appellant but issue Nos. 1, 2, 6 and 7 were decided against the appellant and in favour of the respondent. The application was filed under Section 12(1)(d) and under Section 13(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (Act No. 25 of 1955) for annulling and dissolving the marriage of the applicant and the respondent by passing a decree of divorce. The learned Court below, on the pleadings of the parties, decided some issues in favour of the applicant and some issues in favour of the respondent. The issue Nos. 4 and 5 i.e. whether the respondent was carrying pregnancy from any person other than the applicant at the time of marriage (issue No. 4) and whether the marriage of the applicant with respondent took place due to act of fraud played by respondent 'sparents (issue No. 5), have been discussed by the learned Court below after examining witnesses on behalf of the appellant and on behalf of the respondent and after considering their documentary evidence the learned Court below held that the respondent was actually pregnant at the time of marriage from somebody else and soon after the marriage she made delivery of a child. The respondent in her written statement or in her evidence has levelled allegation of demand of dowry and torture etc. but the learned Court below considered all these facts in detail. Although in written statement such a plea was not taken but the learned Court below even then considered all the facts and after considering the evidence of AW 6, who is a lady doctor, came to a finding that the respondent was pregnant at the time of marriage and she concealed the fact from her sasural people and it is wrong to say that while she was lifting a heavy article she sustained miscarriage and the evidence of doctor is that the respondent gave delivery of a male child, but since petition for such annulment was not filed within one year of the date of marriage, the learned Court below dismissed the suit on the point of limitation.;