[Cites 9, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Manoj Kumar Pramanik vs Rakhi Devi on 7 January, 2026
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
2026:JHHC:285-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
First Appeal No.173 of 2024
Manoj Kumar Pramanik, Aged about 35 years, S/O-
Sambhu Thakur, R/O-Aamtand, Barwadih, P.O.-
Katrasbazar, P.S.-Katras, District-Dhanbad.
... Petitioner/Appellant
Versus
1.Rakhi Devi, Aged about 20 years, W/O -Manoj Kumar
Pramanik, D/o-Chhatradhary Thakur, R/O-Telodih, P.O.-
Singhdaha, P.S.-Topchanchi, District-Dhanbad.
2.Bhakti Thakur, Aged about 34 years, S/O-Pitamber
Pramanik, R/O-Near-Raja Talab, P.O.-Katrasbazar, P.S.
Katras, District-Katras, District-Dhanbad.
... ...Respondents/Respondents
-------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI
-------
For the Appellant : Mr. Ajay Kumar Sah, Advocate
For the Res No. 1 : Mr. Nehru Maho, Advocate
For the Res. No. 2 : Mr. Naresh Pd. Thakur, Advocate
----------
CAV on 20.12.2025 Pronounced on 07/01/2026
Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
1. The instant appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Court
Act, 1984 is directed against the judgment dated 25.06.2024
and decree signed on 05.07.2024 passed by the learned
Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family Court No. II,
Dhanbad in Original Suit No. 693 of 2019, whereby and
whereunder, the suit filed by the petitioner-appellant
[husband] for dissolution of marriage by decree of divorce
u/s 12(1)(d) of the of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, has been
dismissed.
2026:JHHC:285-DB
2. The brief facts of the case, leading to filing of the divorce
petition by the appellant-petitioner, as taken note in the
impugned order as emanated from the plaint, needs to be
referred herein, which as under:
3. The petitioner has filed a suit for decree of dissolution of
marriage on the ground that marriage is null and void u/s
12(1)(d) of Hindu Marriage Act 1955.
4. The case of petitioner-appellant, in brief, is that the he is
legally married with the respondent and their marriage was
solemnized on 26-04-2019 at Telodih, according to Hindu
Rites and Customs. After the marriage, both the petitioner-
appellant and respondent no. 1 had been living together as
wife and husband at Amtand, Barwadih. Out of the wedlock
the couple was blessed with no child.
5. It is stated that respondent no-1 started cohabited with the
petitioner, on the very second day of marriage but thereafter
the respondent no-1 was taken to Dr. Nitu Singh at 'Baba
Clinic' Katrasbazar, on the complain that she has stomach
pain, where after examining the respondent no-1 the doctor
found that respondent no-1 pregnant.
6. It is alleged that the respondent no-1 is pregnant before
marriage and when he inquired with respondent no-1 she
admitted her relationship with respondent no-2 who is her
Chachera [cousin] Jija. Moreover the respondent no-1 all
along persisted with the telephonic conversation with
2026:JHHC:285-DB
respondent no-2 as there was love affair and illicit
relationship between respondent no-1 and respondent no-2.
7. The petitioner informed the matter to the father and brother
of the respondent no-1. Thereafter they came and took away
the daughter on 03-06-2019 upon signing an agreement and
stated that they were taking away respondent no-1 as per
their own will and responsibility. It is further stated that in
this regard the father of petitioner had filed a Misc. Case no-
1260/19 before the court of Executive Magistrate, Dhanbad
on11-06-2019.
8. It is stated that the cause of action for filed the suit arose on
26-04-2019 when the marriage of the petitioner with
respondent no-1 was performed. It also arose on several
occasion when the respondent no.1 misbehaved with the
petitioner-appellant since the knowledge of pregnancy on 29-
05-2019 of the respondent no-1 and illicit relationship with
the respondent no-2.
9. On the aforesaid ground, the petitioner-appellant filed the
suit praying therein to declare the marriage null and void
u/s 12(1) (d) of Hindu Marriage Act 1955.
10. Respondent(s) appeared and contested the suit by filing the
written statement and stated that the present case filed by
petitioner is neither maintainable in law nor on facts hence
is liable to be dismissed.
2026:JHHC:285-DB
11. It has been stated that the entire allegation made by the
petitioner is totally false and concocted. It is further stated
that the respondent no-1 has filed a case in Mahila Thana,
Dhanbad vide case no-21/19 against the petitioner and his
family members and only to save skin from the case the
petitioner has filed the present false case.
12. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the learned family
court mainly framed the issue as to whether the respondent
at the time of the marriage was pregnant by a person other
than the petitioner.
13. The learned Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family
Court-II, Dhanbad after appreciating the evidence adduced
on behalf of parties, came to the conclusion that the
petitioner-husband has not been able to prove his case
against the respondent-wife even to the extent of
preponderance of probabilities. Accordingly, find and hold
that petitioner/appellant is not to get the decree to annul the
marriage between both parties as null and void under
section 12(1) (d) of Hindu Marriage Act 1955.
14. Accordingly, the suit for decree of divorce was dismissed,
against which the instant appeal has been filed.
Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant-husband:
15. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that the
factual aspect which was available before the learned family
court supported by the evidences adduced on behalf of the
2026:JHHC:285-DB
appellant, has not properly been considered and as such,
the judgment impugned is perverse, hence, not sustainable
in the eyes of law.
16. While passing the impugned judgment, the learned family
court failed to consider that respondent no. 1 was pregnant
at the time of marriage, even though in support of such
submission documents as Exhibit 1,1/2 and 1/2 have been
produced and exhibited.
17. It has been submitted that the learned family court has
failed to consider that respondent no. 1 was pregnant prior
to her marriage from respondent no. 2 [cousin brother-in-
law].
18. Furthermore, the conversion between the respondent no. 1
and respondent no. 2 regarding their illicit relationship and
how to hide the pregnancy was recorded in the mobile phone
and the same was produced before the learned trial court in
pen drive, which has been marked as Material Exhibit-I but
the same was not taken into consideration while passing the
impugned judgment, though regarding mobile conversation
between respondent no. 1 and respondent no. 2 which was
produced in pen drive was dealt with in the impugned order
but same was not considered by learned Family Court, while
passing the impugned judgment.
2026:JHHC:285-DB
19. Further submission has been made that respondent no. 1
herself terminated her pregnancy on 05.06.2019 in order to
hide the fact about pregnancy.
20. Referring to Exhibits dealing with medical test of respondent
no. 1, submission has been made that marriage was
solemnized on 26.04.2019 and on 29.05.2019, the
pregnancy shows of five weeks, which itself shows that
pregnancy was prior to marriage but that has not been taken
into consideration by the learned family judge.
21. Submission has been made that mother of respondent no. 1
in C.P. Case No. 5253 of 2022 has deposed that respondent
was pregnant at the time of marriage. Such deposition has
duly been marked as exhibit 2, but this piece of evidence has
not properly been appreciated.
22. Learned counsel for the appellant, based upon the aforesaid
grounds, has submitted that the judgment impugned suffers
from perversity, as such, is not sustainable in the eyes of
law.
Submission of the learned counsel for the respondents:
23. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-
wife, while defending the impugned judgment, has submitted
that there is no error in the impugned judgment.
24. Submission has been made that immediately after marriage
the appellant-husband started torturing the respondent
no.1-wife, for which, she filed a case for demand of dowry
2026:JHHC:285-DB
against her husband. Further, she also filed a case for
committing rape against her devar. Therefore, in order to
save his skin such false case has been filed.
25. Even the medical report suggests that the pregnancy was
after the marriage and furthermore, the in pen drive
containing the conversation of respondent no.1 and
respondent no. 2 nothing objectionable was found by the
learned family judge.
26. The learned Additional Principal Judge considering these
aspects of the matter has dismissed the suit, which cannot
be said to suffer from an error.
Analysis:
27. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and
gone through the finding recorded by the learned Family
Judge in the impugned judgment.
28. The evidence has been led on behalf of both the parties. On
behalf of appellant-husband, three witnesses have been
examined, namely, Sambhu Thakur [PW 1]; Yogendra
Thakur [PW 2] and Manoj Kumar Pramanik [PW 3, the
appellant]. Besides oral evidence, many documentaries
evidence has also been produced on behalf of appellant.
29. Ext.-1 is Doctor's prescription of Rakhi Devi [respondent no.
1-wife]; Ext.-1/1 is Test report dt.29-05-2019 of Rakhi Devi;
Ext.-1/2 is Test report dated 30-05-2019; Ext.-2 is certified
copy of deposition of Nanki Devi in CP case no-5253/22;
2026:JHHC:285-DB
Xerox copy of Akrarnama [agreement] has been marked as
Exhibit X for identification. Pen Drive has been marked as
material Ext.-I.
30. The respondent no.1 has produced and examined altogether
two witnesses, namely, DW-1 Chhatradhari Thakur; DW-2
Rakhi Devi. (Respondent no-1 herself). The respondent no. 1
has produced documentary evidence on her behalf also.
Ext.-A is Invitation Card of marriage of Kumari Poonam and
Manoj Thakur; Ext.-B is the Treatment prescription Report
of Rakhi Devi; Ext.-B/1 is the Ultrasound report of Rakhi
Devi; Ext.-B/2 is the Ultrasound of Rakhi Devi.
31. This Court in order to appreciate the testimony available on
record has gone through the testimonies of the witnesses
available on record.
32. P.W. 1-Shambhu Thakur, father of the appellant, has stated
in his examination-in-chief that marriage of the appellant
and respondent no.1 was solemnized on 26.04.2019. It is
deposed that on the very next day of marriage, the
respondent no. 1 complained of stomach pain, as such she
was taken to the clinic of Dr. Nitu Rani, where in course of
examination it was found that the respondent no. 1 is
pregnant for one and half month. It has further been
deposed that on being enquired by the appellant and his
mother, the respondent no. 1-wife has admitted that she had
illicit relation with respondent no. 2 for the last few months
2026:JHHC:285-DB
and further the conversion between the respondent no. 1
and respondent no. 2 has also been recorded which is in pen
drive.
33. He has further deposed that all these matters have been told
to father and brother of respondent no. 1, upon which on
03.06.2019, there was agreement between them and
thereafter the respondent no. 1 went with her father to her
maike.
34. It is further alleged that after return to her father's house,
the respondent no. 1 demanded the medical reports and
threatened to trap in false case to him and his family
members. Thereafter, on 11.06.2019 he [the father of the
appellant] filed a case no. 1260 of 2019 under Section 30 of
the IPC.
35. It has further been deposed that before marriage there was
talk between the appellant and respondent no. 1 but
respondent no. 1 did not tell about her illicit relationship
with respondent no. 2.
36. This witness has thoroughly been cross-examined. In cross
examination, he has stated that Rakhi Devi [respondent no.
1-wife] was never tortured in her sasural for demand of
dowry. In the case of demand of dowry and cruelty he was
granted bail. After marriage Rakhi Devi [respondent no. 1-
wife] resided in his house for four days and thereafter, she
went away to her maika. His son had gone to take Rakhi
2026:JHHC:285-DB
Devi [respondent no. 1-wife] and she again went to her
sasural and resided for three days. The dispute arose on the
second day of the marriage on behalf of Rakhi Devi. She
does not cook food in his house. She resided only for 11
days in his house and since thereafter did not return to her
sasural. In Mahila Thana both husband and wife have been
persuaded but they both did not ready to reside together. He
has sent the proposal of compromise but his daughter-in-
law did not ready for the same. It is not true that his son has
illicit relationship with another lady due to which he
tortured to his wife.
37. P.W. 2, Yogendra Thakur, has also supported the case of
the appellant. In cross-examination he has stated that the
appellant-Manoj Pramanik has stated that the respondent
no. 1 has pregnancy of one and half month and further the
statement made at paragraph 5 of his examination-in-chief
that he has been told by Manoj Pramanik and his mother
and all the information has been received from appellant-
Manoj Pramanik and his mother. P.W. 2 has stated that his
house is 100 metre from the house of Manoj Kumar. He
came to know with Manoj Kumar regarding one and half
month pregnancy of Rakhi Devi.
38. PW-3 is the petitioner-appellant who has stated in his
examination-in-chief that he was married with respondent
no-1, namely, Rakhi Devi on 26-04-2019. After marriage
2026:JHHC:285-DB
respondent no-1 came to his house at Aamtard Katras to
lead conjugal life. He has further stated that on the very
second day of marriage his wife suffered from stomach pain
and then he took her to clinic of Dr. Nitu Rani where in
course of examination she was found to be pregnant for one
and half months. The prescription of Dr. Nitu Kumar Singh
has been filed, which has been marked as Ext.-1.
39. He has further stated that on being inquired his wife said
that she is having illicit relationship with respondent no-2
Bhakti Thakur prior to marriage. He has produced pen drive
regarding conversation of respondent no. 1 and respondent
no.2. Thereafter, on 03-06-2019 father of respondent no-1
and her uncle came who took the respondent/wife by
executing an agreement (akrarnama).
40. The family members of his wife did not disclose the fact that
prior to marriage she was pregnant. From the medical report
dated 29-05-2019 it is clear that she was pregnant prior to
marriage. The examination report has been marked as 1/1
and 1/2 with objection.
41. In cross-examination, he has stated that after marriage his
wife resided only for two days in his house and thereafter
she went away to her maika. She again returned back to her
sasural and stayed for one day and thereafter her father
came and again took her. His wife again came to her sasural
on 28-05-2019 and resided for eight days and again
2026:JHHC:285-DB
returned to her maika on 03-06-2019. After marriage his
father has not instituted any case but informed to the senior
officer. He has falsely mentioned in the 'A' portion the plaint
regarding physical relationship with his wife. In the
prescription of Dr. Nitu Singh dated 29-05-2019 only the
name of Rakhi Devi is mentioned, neither the name of her
husband nor her age has been mentioned.
42. In the X-ray report and ECHO Report also the father or
husband's name of Rakhi Devi has not been mentioned. The
Petitioner/appellant has left respondent/wife since year
2019. His father-in-law and brother-in-law had come to his
house and demanded medical paper and threatened them.
In this regard he has not given information to Thana. He has
not mentioned in his affidavit that his wife tortured him
physically and mentally and also abused him. He knows to
Bhakti Thakur prior to marriage, who is cousin Jija of
respondent Rakhi Devi. Further, he was granted anticipatory
bail by the Hon'ble High court in the case of dowry.
43. Dw-1-Chhatradhari Thakur, is father of the respondent,
who has supported the case of respondent no.-1 in
examination-in-chief.
44. In cross-examination, he has stated that his daughter has
filed case for demand of dowry against her husband. She
also has filed a case for committing rape against her Devar
[brother of her husband]. Prior to filing of this case his
2026:JHHC:285-DB
daughter has filed a case in Mahila Thana. After marriage
his son-in-law took his wife for pregnancy test and his
daughter has found to be pregnant. It is true that the case
filed by his daughter in Mahila Thana was ended as F.R.T. It
is not true that his daughter was found to be pregnant due
to which petitioner has filed this case.
45. DW-2 is respondent herself who has stated in her
examination-in-chief that she was married with petitioner on
26-04-2019. After marriage she came to her sasural and
both husband and wife started living as husband and wife
and they both have cohabited to each other and they both
resided for ten days together peacefully. Thereafter, her in-
laws put pressure upon her to bring Rs. Two Lakh as dowry
and on being denied by her they started torturing her
physically and mentally. Her husband has made false
allegation as because after marriage cohabitation took place
between both parties for several days as a result of which
she got pregnant.
46. He has falsely made allegation that she is having illicit
relationship with one Bharti Thakur. In course of torturing
he instigated to his brother Suraj Thakur for committing
rape and on 03-06-2019 her situation was very critical and
then upon information her father and others came and took
her and while going to her maika her in-laws got written a
document forcibly and only to save life of her the family
2026:JHHC:285-DB
members put signature upon the documents. She was
treated on 04-06-2019 by Dr. Shivani Jha. She was beaten
by her in-laws which caused miscarriage, even then, she
wants to lead conjugal life with her husband.
47. In cross-examination, she has stated that after filing of this
case she has filed case for demand of dowry. Bhakti Thakur
resides in Katras. She put his signature in an agreement
executed on 03-06 2019. From 26-04-2019 to 03-06-2019
she resided in her sasural for one and half months. It is false
to say that on 26-04-2019 she was pregnant. It is not true
that she was pregnant on the time of marriage on 26-04-
2019 and she has given false evidence.
48. On the basis of the pleading of the parties, the learned
Additional Principal Family Judge had framed issues for
proper determination of the lis, and after due appreciation of
the ocular as well as documentary evidence, the suit filed by
the petitioner-appellant [husband] for dissolution of
marriage by decree of divorce u/s 12 (1)(d) of Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955 against respondent/husband, has been
dismissed.
49. From the aforesaid factual aspect, it is evident that the
petitioner-husband, the appellant herein, had made
allegation that prior to marriage his wife was pregnant with
another person namely Bhakti Thakur (Respondent no-2),
whereas the respondent no1-wife has denied such allegation
2026:JHHC:285-DB
and stated that after consummation of marriage, she became
pregnant and in the ultrasound on 29.05.2019, she was
found to be pregnancy of five weeks, therefore, the
contention of the appellant is totally baseless that prior to
marriage she was pregnant.
50. The suit was filed by the petitioner-husband to declare the
marriage null and void taking aid of Section 12(1)(d) of the
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
51. Therefore, this Court before proceeding to deal with the
respective submissions of the counsel as also before
appreciating the evidence adduced on behalf of the parties,
as taken note of above, deems it appropriate to have a glance
to the relevant provisions which may assume some
importance in addressing the issue. Section 5 of the Hindu
Marriage Act contains the conditions for the valid marriage
solemnized between any two Hindus. The said section is
reproduced hereunder:
"5. Conditions for a Hindu Marriage.- A marriage may be
solemnized between any two Hindus, if the following
conditions are fulfilled, namely:
(i) neither party has a spouse living at the time of the
marriage;
(ii) at the time of the marriage, neither party-
(a) is incapable of giving a valid consent to it in
consequence of unsoundness of mind; or
(b) though capable of giving a valid consent, has
been suffering from mental disorder of such a
2026:JHHC:285-DB
kind or to such an extent as to be unfit for
marriage and the procreation of children; or
(c) has been subject to recurrent attacks of
insanity
(iii) the bridegroom has completed the age of twenty-one
years and the bride, the age of eighteen years at the
time of the marriage;
(iv) the parties are not within the degree of prohibited
relationship, unless the custom or usage governing each
of them permits of a marriage between the two;
(v) the parties are not sapindas of each other, unless the
custom or usage governing each of them permits of a
marriage between the two;
52. Section 7 of the Act relates to the ceremonies for the Hindu
Marriage to be performed with Customary Rites of either
parties including Saptopodi i.e. taking of seven steps by
bridegroom and bride jointly before the sacred fire to
complete the marriage. The marriage shall be declared null
and void at the option of either of the parties if it
contravenes any of the provisions specified in Clause (i), (iv)
and (v) of Section 5 of the said Act. Section 12 of the Act,
which is pertinent in the present case, can be resorted to
either of the parties for annulling the marriage as nullity
provided the grounds set fourth therein are satisfied. Section
12 of the Act 1955, is quoted below:
"12. Voidable marriages. - (1) Any marriage
solemnized, whether before or after the
commencement of this Act, shall be voidable and
may be annulled by a decree of nullity on any of the
following grounds, namely:
2026:JHHC:285-DB
(a) that the marriage has not been consummated owing to
the impotence of the respondent; or
(b) that the marriage is in contravention of the condition
specified in clause (ii) of section 5; or
(c) that the consent of the petitioner, or where the consent
of the guardian in marriage of the petitioner was required
under section 5 as it stood immediately before the
commencement of the Child Marriage Restraint
(Amendment) Act 1978 (2 of 1978), the consent of such
guardian was obtained by force or by fraud as to the
nature of the ceremony or as to any material fact or
circumstance concerning the respondent; or
(d) that the respondent was at the time of the
marriage pregnant by some person other than the
petitioner.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1),
no petition for annulling a marriage:
(a) on the ground specified in clause (c) of sub-section (1)
shall be entertained if:
(i) the petition is presented more than one year after the
force had ceased to operate or, as the case may be, the
fraud had been discovered; or
(ii) the petitioner has, with his or her full consent, lived
with the other party to the marriage as husband or wife
after the force had ceased to operate or, as the case may
be, the fraud had been discovered;
(b) On the ground specified in clause (d) of sub-section (1)
shall be entertained unless the Court is satisfied:
(i) that the petitioner was at the time of the marriage
ignorant of the facts alleged;
(ii) that proceedings have been instituted in the case of a
marriage solemnized before the commencement of this Act
within one year of such commencement and in the case of
2026:JHHC:285-DB
marriages solemnised after such commencement within
one year from the date of the marriage; and
(iii) that marital intercourse with the consent of the
petitioner has not taken place since the discovery by the
petitioner of the existence of the said ground."
53. Looking to Section 12(1)(d) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955,
it is voidable marriage if the circumstances stated in Section
12(1)(d) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 are proved. Section
12(1)(d) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, allows for
annulment of a marriage if the respondent (wife) was
pregnant by someone other than the petitioner (husband) at
the time of marriage, provided the husband was ignorant of
this fact and took action within a year of discovery, without
consummating the marriage after learning the truth. It's a
ground for declaring a marriage voidable (not automatically
void) if crucial aspects, like the wife's premarital pregnancy
by another, were concealed.
54. It needs to refer herein that under the Hindu Law, a
marriage is not a contract but sacrament. The Hindu
Marriage Act has no doubt made an inroad into the close
preserve of the ancient Hindu Law strongly suggesting the
marriage as sacrament and not contract which still goes
strong. Both the Hindu Marriage Act and Contract Act are
not pari materia as the former deals with marriages and the
other deals with contract and commerce. There are still
strong reasons to hold that the Hindu Marriage is not a
2026:JHHC:285-DB
contract but sacrament, as the contract can at the will of the
parties be dissolved but the parties who contract a marriage
cannot except, of course, divorce by mutual consent as
provided under Section 13B of the said Act.
55. Bearing in mind the principles, which flow from a fair
reading of the statutory provisions as noted above, we
proceed to examine whether the appellant has succeeded in
establishing the case for declaring the marriage null and
void on the ground of the respondent was at the time of the
marriage pregnant by some person other than the petitioner.
56. From perusal of Section 12(1)(d) of the Hindu Marriage Act,
1955, it is evident that it focuses on grounds for voidable
marriages, particularly when the wife was pregnant by
someone other than the husband at the time of marriage,
affirming it as a valid ground for annulment if proven,
emphasizing the need for material concealment or fraud by
the wife that would have prevented the marriage if known,
and highlighting issues like timely filing and proof of the pre-
existing pregnancy.
57. This Court, bearing in the mind the provision of Section
12(1)(d) of the Act 1955, has gone into the submissions
advanced by learned counsel for the parties, to examine
whether the appellant has succeeded in establishing the
case for declaring the marriage null and void on the ground
that at the time of marriage, the wife was pregnant and for
2026:JHHC:285-DB
coming out such conclusion, we again delve into the
testimonies of the witnesses as also the exhibits available on
record as also submissions advanced on behalf of parties.
58. As per evidence of appellant and other witnesses produced
on his behalf on the second day of the marriage all of sudden
respondent suffered from stomach pain and thereafter she
was taken to the clinic of Dr. Nitu Rani where in course of
examination she was found to be pregnant for one and half
months.
59. While on the other hand, the said fact has been denied by
the respondent-wife in her pleadings as well as in her
evidence and stated that after marriage she came to her
sasural to lead her conjugal life where she resided for ten
days peacefully and thereafter due to demand of dowry of Rs
two lakhs her in-laws started torturing her. In sasural her
husband cohabited her several times resultantly she got
pregnant thereafter they had demanded Rs. Two lakh and
had made false allegation against her that she was pregnant
with another person and she is having illicit relationship
with one Bhakti Thakur. She was brutally beaten on 03-06-
2019 and to save her life she came to her maika and she was
treated on 04-06-2019 with Dr. Shivani Jha ultimately her
pregnancy terminated on 05-06-2019 due to beaten her by
her in-laws.
2026:JHHC:285-DB
60. On perusal of evidence of appellant, it appears that he has
given contradictory statement which does not support with
documentary evidence. In his evidence in para-4 he has
stated that on the second day of marriage his wife was
suffering from stomach pain and so she was taken to clinic
of doctor where it is found that she was pregnant. Meaning
thereby she was found to be pregnant just after two days of
marriage solemnized on 26-04-2019. In support of his
contention, prescription of doctor has been filed, which has
been marked as Exhibit, wherefrom it is evident that
respondent-wife had been taken to the clinic on 29.05.2019
i.e., after more than one month of the marriage whereas as
per petitioner-husband she was taken to clinic just after two
days of marriage. Therefore, the statement of the appellant
gets falsified.
61. Further, the appellant himself has admitted in his plaint to
have cohabitation with his wife several times when she came
to her sasural but in his evidence he stated that he has
falsely stated in his plaint regarding physical relationship of
him with his wife so here also he has given contradictory
statement.
62. Admittedly, herein the respondent-wife had filed case
against her husband and in-laws for demand of dowry and
cruelty, which has been admitted by the father of the
appellant who has also stated that his daughter-in-law has
2026:JHHC:285-DB
filed case for demand of dowry and cruelty against him and
his son, which prima-facie substantiated the fact that in
sasural respondent was subjected to cruelty by her-in-laws.
Further, the question herein is that if she was found to be
pregnant on very second day of the marriage then why she
was allowed to return back in her sasural.
63. Even as per prescription of Dr. Nitu Singh exhibit (one
series) Respondent Rakhi Devi was taken to her clinic on 29-
05-2019 and after check-up she was advised for pregnancy
test and ultrasound of stomach and she was found to be
pregnant of five weeks on 29-05-2019 and date of LMP is 21-
4-2019 which means she was pregnant after 21-04-2019
i.e., after LMP and her marriage was solemnized on 26-04-
2019, so the report of doctor also suggests that she was
pregnant after marriage and not prior to marriage.
64. Further respondent was also taken to the clinic of Dr.
Shivani Jha on 04-06-2019 by her family members and as
per the medical report of doctor she was found to be
pregnant of one and half months from the date of LMP [Last
Menstrual Period] dated 21.04.2019 and as per Ultrasound
report the expected delivery date is 26-01-2020 (+& - 14
days.) It is admitted fact that since the marriage of both
parties were solemnized on 26-04-2019 and it may be
presumed the first day of coitus is 26-04-2019 when she got
pregnant then expected delivery would be the month of
2026:JHHC:285-DB
January 2020. So as per this report of another doctor also
the respondent got pregnant after marriage and not prior to
marriage.
65. Further, before the learned family court, the respondent-wife
has produced a marriage card which has been marked as
Ext.A and wherefrom it is evident that the marriage of
petitioner was fixed with another lady Kumari Poonam on
10-10-2022. Therefore, on this ground also it may be
conferred that petitioner wants to solemnize second marriage
with another lady during existence of first marriage and
therefore possibility of the false allegation against
respondent cannot be denied completely.
66. On behalf of appellant a pen drive was produced before the
learned family court which is allegedly the audio clip, the
same was heard by the learned family court but nothing
objectionable was found in the pen drive and the
conversation recorded therein was not found to be relevant
with respect to this case. Therefore, on this ground also the
appellant failed to establish his case.
67. This Court, on the basis of discussions made hereinabove, is
of the considered view that the appellant has failed to prove
that the respondent was pregnant prior to marriage, so as to
obtain decree of dissolution of marriage on the ground that
marriage is null and void under Section 12(1)(d) of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955.
2026:JHHC:285-DB
68. Learned additional family judge, after taking into
consideration the aforesaid fact since has come to the
conclusion that the appellant-petitioner has not been able to
prove his case against the respondent-wife even to the extent
of preponderance of probabilities and as such hold that the
appellant is not entitled to get a decree to annul the
marriage between both parties as null and void under
section 12(1) (d) of Hindu Marriage Act 1955, which in our
considered view cannot be faulted with.
69. Accordingly, the instant appeal fails and is dismissed.
70. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands
disposed of.
I Agree (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Arun Kumar Rai, J.) (Arun Kumar Rai, J.)
07th January, 2026
A.F.R.
Alankar/
Uploaded on 08.01.2026
