Mr. Ranjit Thomas vs Ms. Annie R. Thomas
2001 Latest Caselaw 685 Del

ORDER

J.D. Kapoor, J.

1. This is a petition under Section 18 read with Section 19 of the Indian Divorce Act. Petitioner seeks declaration of his marriage with respondent as null and void on the ground that the consent of the respondent was obtained by force by her parents.

2. The marriage between the parties took place on 26th April, 1992 according to the Christian rites and customs at St. Peter's Cathedral, Kottayam in the State of Kerala. It was an arranged marriage. The parents of the petitioner responded to the advertisement that appeared in the matrimonial column given by the parents of the respondent. The petitioner is practicing as a lawyer in Delhi and the respondent is working as an Assistant Commandant in Central Reserve Police.

3. However, the parties have lastly resided together in Delhi. They lived together for an inordinately short stint i.e. a week's time. It is alleged that during this period even though the petitioner made attempts to have intimate relationship with the respondent, the respondent did not show any interest in the married life and declined to cooperate with any of the gestures made by the petitioner. The respondent continued her attitude of carelessness and uneasiness towards the petitioner. The petitioner wanted to know the reasons for such strange behavior. The respondent disclosed on 20th May, 1992 that she was not interested to marry the petitioner and that she had just performed the rites of the marriage with the petitioner only to satisfy her parents. The said disclosure was a severe shock to the petitioner as according to him had she disclosed the same before the marriage, he would not have entered into the wedlock. Thereafter, the respondent left Delhi to join her duty at Ayodhya. The petitioner made numerous attempts to persuade her to live with him as wife but she never responded in any manner and preferred to keep away from the petitioner.

4. The ground for divorce is that there was no proper and valid consent from the side of the respondent as she had performed the rites of marriage with the petitioner due to force and duress exerted by her parents and as such the said marriage is null and void.

5. Section 18 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 provides as under :-

Decree of nullity:- Any husband or wife may present a petition to the District Court or to the High Court, praying that his or her marriage may be declared null and void.

6. Section 19 postulates the grounds of decree for declaration of marriage as null and void. These are :-

(a) that the respondent was impotent at the time of the marriage and at the time of the institution of the petition.

(b) that the parties are within the prohibited degrees of consanguinity (whether natural or legal) or affinity;

(c) that either party was a lunatic or idiot at the time of the marriage.

(d) that the former husband or wife of either party was living at the time of the marriage and the marriage with such former husband or wife was then in force.

Affidavit by way of evidence has been filed by the petitioner in support of the averments that the respondent had disclosed on 20th May, 1992 that she performed the matrimonial rituals due to force and duress exerted by her parents and to satisfy her parents and that she was never a willing party to the marriage nor did she give any valid and free consent for the said marriage. It has remained uncontroverter and unchallenged.

7. It is also deposed that they are living separately from each other and that no collusion or connivance exists between them.

8. Now the question arises whether consent of a party for marriage under the force or duress exerted by her parents or to agree for marriage only for the satisfaction of the parents without any perceptible exhibition of the aforesaid elements amounts to a consent obtained by force or duress or not.

9. The word 'consent' means to agree in sentiment or opinion or to agree as to an expressed wish or proposed action. In other words it means to accord, to give approval or be in agreement.

10. Word 'force' means to compel, constrain or to oblige oneself to do something physically or otherwise. Similarly word 'duress' means compulsion by threat or force or coercion. Coercion or constraint leading to agreement for a certain act also amounts to coercion.

11. Thus consent always flows from free violation and is not afflicted with any element of force or fraud or duress or coercion, constraint or compulsion and should not be clouded by element of involuntariness.

12. Even if a person is made to agree or acquiesce by way of inducement or by way of obscuring the free-thinking of a person either through pursuation or imposition of will, such an agreement is not a consent. Similarly consent fraught with fraud is farthest from its being voluntary or violational in nature.

13. Thus if a party to a marriage gives consent either under the influence of parents or to avoid and escape their wrath or disagreement or under their or any other kin's threat to harm themselves or the disagreeing party to the marriage or through the implorings of saving the honour of the family or parents satisfaction, such a consent lacks element of voluntariness and volition as it is smeared with duress and force.

14. Instant wedlock turned into a deadlock at its very inception. Parties hardly stayed for a week together and that too without any response to marital advances of the petitioner. Dismayed at such a conduct of the respondent, the petitioner asked her about her indifferent attitude. She disclosed that she was not interested in marrying him and gave the consent at the instance of her parents and for their satisfaction. It appears that her physical and mental strength succumbed under filial force and obedience. It was not a consent free from force or duress and, therefore, neither voluntary nor volitional.

15. As a result, the petition is allowed and marriage is hereby declared as null and void by way of a decree of nullity.