Sourav Sen vs Smt. Juhi Dutta
2022 Latest Caselaw 2508 Cal

Dl.   May 4,              F.A. 36 of 2017
28.   2022

                          Sourav Sen
                              Vs,
                          Smt. Juhi Dutta
                          Mr. Soumik Ganguly,
                          Mr. Sayan Roy,
                                 ...for the appellant.

                          Re: CAN 5 of 2022 (expeditious hearing)
                              filed on April 8, 2022.

                              Although the matter is appearing under the heading

               "application", we take up the appeal itself is taken up for

               consideration upon dispensation of all formalities.

                              The present appeal has arisen out of a decree for

               divorce in Matrimonial Suit No. 155 of 2012. The decree was

               passed on the ground that there has been no consummation of

               marriage between the parties and that the registration of marriage

               was made under threat and coercion.

                              Mr. Soumik Ganguly, learned advocate appearing on

               behalf of the appellant/husband, submits that at the time of

               registration of marriage, the respondent/wife was present before the

Registrar of Marriage and she has put her signature on the required

documents, which clearly shows that there was no coercion or threat

as alleged by the respondent/wife.

In spite of notice, the respondent/wife is not

represented.

We have gone through the judgment impugned in this

appeal in detail and have heard Mr. Ganguly, learned advocate for

the appellant.

It appears that there was a love relationship between the

appellant/husband and the respondent/wife prior to their marriage.

The petitioner/wife came into the contact of the appellant/husband

at her tender age of 16 years having fanciful ideas about love. The

appellant/husband was the teacher of the petitioner/wife. The

petitioner/wife, after completion of her Madhyamik examination

sometime in March 2009, took admission in a computer centre,

namely, Bankura Sahar Youth Computer Training Centre at I.T.

Bazar, Kuchkuchia, Bankura, where the appellant/husband was a

teacher. The appellant also used to reside in the same

neighbourhood where the petitioner/wife resides. During that time

while attending computer classes, intimate relationship developed

between the parties and the petitioner/wife alleged that taking

advantage of her vulnerability, the appellant/husband had taken few

photographs. Such relationship between the parties continued for

almost two years and when the petitioner/wife was at the threshold

of 18 years, the appellant/husband insisted the petitioner to marry

him and, according to the petitioner, she was forced to sign two

documents without really knowing about legality of such

documents.

The evidence on record shows that the appellant met

the petitioner/wife outside her college on June 15, 2012 and

requested her to accompany him before the Marriage Registry

Office and when she declined to accompany, the appellant/husband

threatened the petitioner that the inappropriate photographs taken

during the intimate relationship would be published. The

circumstances under which she was compelled to attend the

Marriage Registry Office and put her signature on the required

documents has been elaborately stated by the petitioner/wife during

her evidence and more particularly during her cross-examination as

would appear from her deposition recorded on May 21, 2014. The

compulsion under which she was forced to attend the Marriage

Registry Office and put her signature has been clearly stated by her

remained unshaken during her cross-examination. It has to be

remembered that there was a difference of age of 10 years between

the petitioner/wife and the husband/appellant and it was well

established that the appellant/husband was in a dominant position.

The evidence would show that the appellant/husband continued to

dominate the petitioner/wife because of their close proximity and

also being the teacher of the petitioner/wife of her computer classes.

Interestingly none of the witnesses, who put their signature before

the Marriage Registrar, have any relationship with the

petitioner/wife. They are neither the friends nor the acquaintance of

the petitioner/wife. They are complete stranger to the

petitioner/wife. It would be evident from the evidence on record that

there was no consummation of marriage at all. In the same

conspectus of facts where the respondent/wife was only nineteen

years of age and the appellant/husband being computer music

teacher of the respondent/wife and was much older than her,

Supreme Court of India held in Jolly Das vs. Tapan Ranjan Das

reported in (1994) 4 S.C.C. 363 that such a marriage is "sham

marriage", "a marriage only in name". Inexperience, tender age and

vulnerable emotions were victim of a mature and seasoned mind,

standing in the position of a tutor, thereby subjecting the

victim/respondent to the fear of exposure and shame which such a

tender mind can hardly resist. We have no hesitation to hold that the

marriage in the instant case is a nominal one, a paper marriage

without having the true spirit and purport of a true marriage, a sham

marriage

On such consideration, we do not find any reason to

interfere with the judgment and decree passed by the trial court and

the same is, accordingly, confirmed.

The appeal thus, stands dismissed.

In view of dismissal of the appeal the application being

CAN 5 of 2022 is disposed of.

There will be no order as to costs.

dns
      ( Sugato Majumdar, J. )                           ( Soumen Sen, J. )