- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the appellant. Appellant is the husband aggrieved by the dismissal of Title Matrimonial Suit No.115/2013 instituted under Section 12(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 wherein he alleged that consent of the petitioner for marriage was obtained by force. Case of the parties is briefly stated hereunder :- The appellant-husband solemnized marriage with the respondent on 23rd December 2012 at Gaurinath Dham, Purulia (West Bengal) and on 21st January 2013 the marriage was registered before the Special Marriage Officer, Purulia (West Bengal). Thereafter they started living at Khutadih, Pindrajora, Bokaro at the house of the petitioner. Petitioner contended that the marriage was procured under pressure and coercion and is voidable. He also contended that the respondent is a distant relative of the petitioner-appellant. Therefore, the suit was instituted for dissolution of marriage under Section 12(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and under Section 25(iii) of the Special Marriage Act, 1954.
(2.) The respondent through her written statement accepted the marriage with the appellant and further stated that they were on love affair prior to it. Petitioner had established physical relationship with her on promise of marriage. When he denied to marry after some months, an F.I.R. was lodged being Purulia (M) P.S. Case No.214/2012 under Sections 376 and 417 I.P.C. During course of the proceeding before the learned Sessions Judge, Purulia in an anticipatory bail petition the petitioner-husband sworn an affidavit that he would lead a happy marital life with the respondent. Sessions Trial Case No.135/2013 was pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-I, Purulia. She further contended that the petitioner and his family members demanded Rs.1 lakh as dowry and pressurized her to withdraw criminal case, otherwise she would not be entertained in their house. When she refused to withdraw the case, the suit has been filed on the concocted grounds. Their marriage has been duly consummated but the petitioner is trying to marry another person. Learned Family Court framed five issues as under :- (1) Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form ? (2) Whether there is any valid cause of action for filing this suit ? (3) Whether the consent of the petitioner for the marriage was obtained by force and under threat that if he would not marry with respondent he will be put behind bars in a false criminal case ? (4) Whether the respondent is own "Bhanji" of the petitioner in relation and hence they are within the degrees of prohibited relationship ? (5) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get relief as prayed for ? Six witnesses were examined by the petitioner husband i.e. P.W.1 Sanjiv Kumar Mahato (petitioner himself), P.W.2 Tara pada Mahato (father of the petitioner), P.W.3 Rajiv Kumar Mahto, P.W.4 Anima Mahto (sister of the petitioner), P.W.5 Padma Lochan Mahato and P.W.6 Ganesh Chandra Mahato. Besides that, he adduced the following documentary evidence :- (i) Exbt.1 is the certified copy of F.I.R. of Purulia (M) P.S. Case No.214/12. (ii) Exbt.2 is the certified copy of charge sheet of Purulia (M) P.S. Case No.214/12. (iii) Mark-X, xerox copy of appointment letter of petitioner in United Bank of India. (iv) Mark-X/1 to X/2, xerox copy of certified copy of Marriage Certificate dated 21.1.2013 issued by Special Marriage Officer, Purulia (W.B.). (v) Mark-X/3, photo copy of medical examination report of respondent Rekha Devi (Mahato) in Purulia (M) P.S. Case No.214/12. (vi) Mark-X/4, Xerox copy of medical examination report of plaintiff Sanjiv Kumar Mahato in Purulia (M) P.S. Case No.214/12. (vii) Mark-X/5 to X/6, xerox copy of statement of Rekha Mahato recorded by Magistrate in Purulia (M) P.S. Case No.214/12.
(3.) On the part of the respondent following four witnesses were examined :- R.W.1 Charubala Devi, R.W.2 Adalat Mahato (father of the respondent), R.W.3 Ankur Mahato and R.W.4 Rekha Mahato (respondent herself). No documentary evidence was adduced on her behalf.;