Karnataka High Court
Sri Bestha Rajashekhar vs Smt M Umadevi on 7 March, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:10541-DB
MFA No. 8418/2017
C/W MFA No. 2965/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.8418/2017 (SMA)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2965/2021 (SMA)
IN MFA NO.8418/2017
BETWEEN:
SRI BESTHA RAJASEKHAR
S/O. B. NARAYANASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
R/AT. D.NO.5-3-178,
D.R. COLONY, HINDUPUR TOWN,
ANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT,
ANDRAPRADESH PIN - 515 201. ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI A. SHIVARAMA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SMT. M. UMA DEVI,
D/O. MUNISHAMAPPA,
Digitally signed
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
by SHYAMALA
R/AT. GATE WOMAN,
Location: HIGH ARAVINDA NAGAR,
COURT OF RAILWAY QUARTERS NO.8,
KARNATAKA
GOWRIBIDANUR TOWN,
CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT
PIN - 561 210. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI SOMASEKHARA K.H., ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:10541-DB
MFA No. 8418/2017
C/W MFA No. 2965/2021
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 39 OF SPECIAL MARRIAGE ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT
AND DECREE DATED 20.07.2017 PASSED IN M.C. NO.2/2015 ON THE
FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE CHIKKABALLAPUR,
DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 25(III) OF
SPECIAL MARRIAGE ACT.
IN MFA NO.2965/2021
BETWEEN:
SRI. BESTHA RAJASHEKHAR
S/O. B. NARAYANASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
R/A. DOOR NO. 5-3-178,
D.R. COLONY, HINDUPUR TOWN,
ANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT,
ANDRAPRADESH. ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI SHIVARAMA A., ADVOCATE)
AND:
SMT. M. UMADEVI,
W/O. BESTHA RAJASHEKHAR
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
R/A. NO. RAILWAY QUARTERS
ARAVIND NAGAR,
GOWRIBIDANUR TOWN. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI SOMASEKHARA K.H., ADVOCATE)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 39 OF SPECIAL MARRIAGE ACT READ WITH SECTION 19(1)
OF FAMILY COURT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
23.03.2021 PASSED IN M.C. NO.45/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE
PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, CHIKKABALLAPUR, ALLOWING
THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 22 OF THE SPECIAL
MARRIAGE ACT, 1954.
THESE MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEALS COMING ON FOR
FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, K.S.HEMALEKHA J., DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:10541-DB
MFA No. 8418/2017
C/W MFA No. 2965/2021
JUDGMENT
The instant appeals are preferred by the husband.
MFA.No.8418/2017 is against the impugned order dated
20.07.2017 in MC.No.2/2015 on the file of the Prl. District
Judge at Chikkaballapur, whereby, the petition filed by the
husband under Section 25(iii) of the Special Marriage Act, 1954
(hereinafter referred to as "the SM Act" for short) was
dismissed.
2. MFA.No.2965/2021 is preferred against the
impugned order dated 23.03.2021 in MC.No.45/2021 on the file
of the Prl. Judge Family Court, Chikkaballapur, whereby, the
petition filed by the wife under Section 22 of the SM Act
seeking restitution of conjugal rights was allowed.
3. The parties are referred to as "husband" and "wife"
for the sake of convenience.
4. Factual matrix in MC.No.2/2015, the petition by the
husband under Section 25(iii) of the SM Act seeking decree of
nullity of marriage solemnized on 17.10.2015 on the ground
that the consent to marriage was obtained by coercion/fraud,
husband was pressurised to subscribe his signature in the
NC: 2024:KHC:10541-DB
marriage register, there is no marriage as it was not out of free
will by the husband.
5. The other ground raised by the husband for nullity
of marriage is that the Registrar of Marriage did not follow the
procedure under Section 6(3) of the SM Act and prayed for
grant of decree of nullity of marriage.
6. Wife filed counter statement, inter alia, contending
that the marriage was solemnized on 17.10.2015 before the
Sub-registrar, there was no force or coercion as contended by
the petitioner and the prayer sought for nullity of marriage to
be rejected. It is averred that they were residing together as
husband and wife after the registration of marriage, but all of a
sudden, for the reasons best known to the husband, he
deserted her. The wife specifically averred that she was always
ready to join the matrimonial home.
7. The trial Court on the basis of the pleadings framed
necessary issues, which read as follows:
"1) Whether the petitioner proves that there was
no valid consent for the marriage that was
NC: 2024:KHC:10541-DB
solemnized between the petitioner and
respondent on 17.10.2015?
2) Whether the petitioner proves that the
marriage was not solemnized between himself
and the respondent by following procedure laid
down under section 6(iii) of Special Marriage
Act?
3) Whether the petitioner proves that the
marriage of himself and the respondent was
not solemnized in accordance with the
provisions of the Special Marriage Act and
therefore, it is null and void?
4) Whether the petitioner is entitled for decree of
nullity of marriage dated 17.10.2015?
5) To what order?"
8. In order to substantiate his claim, the appellant-
husband examined himself as PW.1 and three witnesses as
PWs.2 to 4 and got marked documents at Exs.P-1 to P-14. On
the other hand, respondent-wife examined herself as RW.1 and
got marked documents at Exs.D-1 to D-20. The said
documents Exs.D-1 to D-20 were marked during the cross-
examination of the appellant-husband.
NC: 2024:KHC:10541-DB
9. The trial Court, on the basis of the pleadings, oral
and documentary evidence arrived at a conclusion that:
(i) Petitioner-husband has failed to prove that there was no
valid consent for the marriage that was solemnized
between the petitioner and respondent on 17.10.2015.
(ii) Petitioner-husband failed to prove the marriage
solemnized on 17.10.2015 and registered before the
Sub-registrar was without following the procedure laid
down under Section 6(3) of the SM Act.
(iii) Petitioner-husband failed to prove that the marriage was
solemnized contrary to the provisions of the SM Act and it
is null and void.
10. By the judgment, the trial Court dismissed the
petition filed by the husband under Section 25(iii) of the SM
Act.
11. Factual matrix in MC.No.45/2021:
(a) After the dismissal of MC.No2/2015 seeking for
nullity of marriage by the husband, the wife preferred petition
under Section 22 of the SM Act, seeking restitution of conjugal
NC: 2024:KHC:10541-DB
rights specifically contending that the marriage was solemnized
and registered before the Sub-registrar, the husband without
any reasonable cause has left her company and has failed to
perform his obligation.
(b) The husband filed objections, inter alia, denying all
the contentions, urging the similar ground that was raised in
MC.No.2/2015 about the threat, coercion, duress and fraud
being played upon the husband while solemnization of the
marriage on 17.10.2015.
(c) The trial Court on the basis of the pleadings,
formulated the following points:
"1) Whether the petitioner has proved that the
respondent has deserted her without any just
and reasonable cause, therefore she is entitled
for decree as prayed for?
2) What order or decree?"
(d) The wife examined herself as PW.1 and got marked
documents at Exs.P-1 to P-9. On the other hand, husband
examined himself as RW.1 and another witness as RW.2.
NC: 2024:KHC:10541-DB
(e) The trial Court on the basis of the pleadings, oral
and documentary evidence held that the petitioner-wife has
proved that the respondent-husband has deserted her without
any just and reasonable cause and by the impugned order,
allowed the petition under Section 22 and directed the
respondent-husband to join the petitioner to lead marital life.
12. Aggrieved by the judgment and order in both the
petitions, the husband is before this Court in the present
appeals.
13. Heard Sri A.Shivarama, learned counsel for the
appellant - husband, and Sri Somashekara K.H., learned
counsel appearing for the respondent - wife.
14. Learned counsel for the appellant would urge on
the following grounds:
(a) The marriage solemnized on 17.10.2015 before the
Sub-registrar is by force, the signature obtained on the
marriage certificate by coercion, that the husband was not
having any intention to marry.
NC: 2024:KHC:10541-DB
(b) The consent of the husband has been obtained by
coercion, fraud, misrepresentation and the same falls under
Section 25(iii) of the SM Act.
(c) The Registrar of marriage has failed to follow the
procedure in registering the marriage and has violated Section
6(3) of the Act.
(d) The marriage solemnized is due to coercion as per
Section 25(iii) of the SM Act, the marriage solemnized shall be
voidable and be annulled by a decree of nullity.
(e) The restitution sought by the wife and the decree in
her favour is without considering the fact that the marriage was
not solemnized as per the requirement and it is voidable and
the appellant cannot be forced to lead a marital life with the
respondent-wife.
(f) After nearly lapse of eight years of separation,
there is irretrievable breakdown of marriage, thus, the order
directing restitution of conjugal rights and dismissal of the
petition filed by the husband under Section 25(iii) of the SM
Act is unsustainable and sought to allow the appeals.
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:10541-DB
15. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent would justify the order of the trial Courts in
MC.No.2/2015 as well as No.45/2021 and would contend that
the Courts below on rightly considering the oral and
documentary evidence arrived at a just conclusion that the
husband has failed to prove that the marriage solemnized is
voidable and has to be annulled and directed for restitution of
conjugal rights. Learned counsel would contend that the
registration of marriage on 17.10.2015 was by following the
proper procedure and upon registration of the marriage, the
husband cannot contend that it has been obtained by coercion
or undue influence and sought for dismissal of the appeals.
16. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the
parties, the points that arise for our consideration are:
(i) Whether the registration of marriage on
17.10.2015 and the certificate of marriage
issued would be conclusive evidence of the
fact of marriage and whether the husband can
contend that the marriage is contrary to
Section 6(3) of the SM Act?
(ii) Whether the husband has proved that as per
Section 25(iii) of the SM Act, the marriage
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:10541-DB
solemnized on 17.10.2015 is voidable and to
be annulled by a decree of nullity?
(iii) Whether the judgment and decree of the
Courts below warrants interference by this
Court?
Point No.(i):
17. Relevant provisions of the SM Act for consideration
point No.(i) are Sections 4, 5, 6, 7, 12 and 13, which read as
under:
"4. Conditions relating to solemnization
of special marriages.―Notwithstanding anything
contained in any other law for the time being in
force relating to the solemnization of marriages, a
marriage between any two persons may be
solemnized under this Act, if at the time of the
marriage the following conditions are fulfilled,
namely:―
(a) neither party has a spouse living;
(b) neither party―
(i) is incapable of giving a valid consent to
it in consequence of unsoundness of
mind; or
(ii) though capable of giving a valid
consent, has been suffering from
mental disorder of such a kind or to
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:10541-DB
such an extent as to be unfit for
marriage and the procreation of
children; or
(iii) has been subject to recurrent attacks of
insanity;
(c) the male has completed the age of twenty-
one years and the female the age of eighteen
years; 5
(d) the parties are not within the degrees of
prohibited relationship:
Provided that where a custom governing
at least one of the parties permits of a
marriage between them, such marriage may
be solemnized, notwithstanding that they are
within the degrees of prohibited relationship;
and;
(e) where the marriage is solemnized in the
State of Jammu and Kashmir, both parties
are citizens of India domiciled in the
territories to which this Act extends.
Explanation.―In this section, "custom", in
relation to a person belonging to any tribe,
community, group or family, means any rule which
the State Government may, by notification in the
Official Gazette, specify in this behalf as applicable
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:10541-DB
to members of that tribe, community, group or
family:
Provided that no such notification shall be
issued in relation to the members of any tribe,
community, group or family, unless the State
Government is satisfied--
(i) that such rule has been continuously and
uniformly observed for a long time among
those members;
(ii) that such rule is certain and not unreasonable
or opposed to public policy; and
(iii) that such rule, if applicable only to a family,
has not been discontinued by the family.
5. Notice of intended marriage.―When
a marriage is intended to be solemnized under this
Act, the parties to the marriage shall give
notice thereof in writing in the form specified
in the Second Schedule to the Marriage Officer of
the district in which at least one of the parties to
the marriage has resided for a period of not less
than thirty days immediately preceding the date on
which such notice is given.
6. Marriage Notice Book and
publication.―(1) The Marriage Officer shall keep
all notices given under section 5 with the records of
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC:10541-DB
his office and shall also forthwith enter a true copy
of every such notice in a book prescribed for that
purpose, to be called the Marriage Notice Book, and
such book shall be open for inspection at all
reasonable times, without fee, by any person
desirous of inspecting the same.
(2) The Marriage Officer shall cause every
such notice to be published by affixing a copy
thereof to some conspicuous place in his office.
(3) Where either of the parties to an
intended marriage is not permanently residing
within the local limits of the district of the Marriage
Officer to whom the notice has been given under
section 5, the Marriage Officer shall also cause a
copy of such notice to be transmitted to the
Marriage Officer of the district within whose limits
such party is permanently residing, and that
Marriage Officer shall thereupon cause a copy
thereof to be affixed to some conspicuous place in
his office.
7. Objection to marriage.―(1) Any
person may, before the expiration of thirty
days from the date on which any such notice
has been published under sub-section (2) of
section 6, object to the marriage on the ground
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC:10541-DB
that it would contravene one or more of the
conditions specified in section 4.
(2) After the expiration of thirty days from
the date on which notice of an intended marriage
has been published under sub-section (2) of section
6, the marriage may be solemnized, unless it has
been previously objected to under sub-section (1).
(3) The nature of the objection shall be
recorded in writing by the Marriage Officer in the
Marriage Notice Book, be read over and explained if
necessary, to the person making the objection and
shall be signed by him or on his behalf.
*****
12. Place and form of solemnization.―
(1) The marriage may be solemnized at the office
of the Marriage Officer, or at such other place
within a reasonable distance therefrom as the
parties may desire, and upon such conditions and
the payment of such additional fees as may be
prescribed.
(2) The marriage may be solemnized in any
form which the parties may choose to adopt:
Provided that it shall not be complete and
binding on the parties unless each party says to
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC:10541-DB
the other in the presence of the Marriage
Officer and the three witnesses and in any
language understood by the parties,―"I, (A), take
the (B), to be my lawful wife (or husband)".
13. Certificate of marriage.―(1) When the
marriage has been solemnized, the Marriage Officer
shall enter a certificate thereof in the form specified
in the Fourth Schedule in a book to be kept by him
for that purpose and to be called the Marriage
Certificate Book and such certificate shall be signed
by the parties to the marriage and the three
witnesses.
(2) On a certificate being entered in the
Marriage Certificate Book by the Marriage Officer,
the Certificate shall be deemed to be
conclusive evidence of the fact that a
marriage under this Act has been solemnized
and that all formalities respecting the
signatures of witnesses have been complied
with."
18. Section 4 of SM Act lays down conditions relating to
solemnization of special marriages. The Section says "any two
persons" of any caste, crede, religion and faith, domicile or
nationality could solemnize marriages with certain territorial or
- 17 -
NC: 2024:KHC:10541-DB
other limitations. marriage is to be performed between two
persons in India under certain conditions as enumerated in
clauses (a) to (e) of Section 4 of SM Act. The conditions of
marriage as envisaged under the Sections are:
(a) neither party as spouse living;
(b) capability of marriage (imports the soundness of mind,
mental disorder of such a nature or kind or to such an
extent as to be unfit fit for marriage, recurrent, insanity
or epilepsy is another rider on the marriage under this
Act);
(c) prescribes age for marriage of the persons under this Act,
age of male to be 21 years and 18 years in case of
female;
(d) degree of prohibited relationship, meaning if the parties
to the marriage are in the degree of prohibited
relationship, then the marriage cannot be solemnized;
(e) marriage outside India;
(f) neither party is an idiot or lunatic.
19. Section 5 lays down the procedure of an intended
marriage. This Section envisages that when parties to the
marriage intends to solemnize the marriage under this Act,
- 18 -
NC: 2024:KHC:10541-DB
they shall give a notice in the prescribed form to the marriage
officer of the District in which atleast one of the parties of the
marriage are resided for a period of not less than 30 days
immediately preceding the date on which notice is given. The
parties hereto submitted application as is evident at Ex.P-5
about the intention of marriage. The provisions are clear and
exhaustive in nature while making it clear that the desirous
parties to give their intention to marry.
20. Section 6 of the SM Act lays down that the
marriage officer can cause any such notice to be published by
affixing a copy thereof to some conspicuous place in his office
and when either of the parties to an intended marriage is not
permanently residing within a local limits of the district.
Marriage officer to whom the notice has been given under
Section 5 of the Act, the marriage officer can also cause a copy
of such notice to be transmitted to the marriage officer of the
district within whose limit such party is permanently residing.
This Section provides a procedure to be followed by concerned
marriage officer who has been given notice under Section 5 of
the SM Act to the intending marriage of the parties.
- 19 -
NC: 2024:KHC:10541-DB
21. Section 7 of the said Act envisages that, any person
before expiry of 30 days, notice can object to the marriage on
the ground that it would contravene one or more of the
conditions specified in Section 4 and not otherwise. There is no
special form of marriage solemnization under the Act. Only
certain formalities have to be undergone as per the Act.
Neither any ritual nor any particular ceremony are to be
performed, Section 12(2) of the Act specifically lays down that
the marriage may be solemnized in any form which the party
may choose to adopt. This clause has a proviso, but that is
only a compulsory formality which the parties will perform by
uttering certain words and solemnization of marriage becomes
complete as soon as the formalities under the Act is complete,
the marriage is complete in all aspects. PW.4 - the Sub-
registrar has categorically spoken about the due completion of
the formalities and issuance of the certificate of marriage on
completion of the formalities as envisaged under Section 12 of
the Act.
22. Section 13 of the SM Act envisages that when a
marriage has been solemnized, the marriage officer shall enter
a certificate thereof in the form specified and he shall enter in
- 20 -
NC: 2024:KHC:10541-DB
the book kept by him for the said purpose and would be called
the marriage certificate book. On the certificate being entered
in the marriage certificate book by the marriage officer, the
certificate shall be deemed to be a conclusive evidence of the
fact that the marriage under this Act has been solemnized and
all the formalities respecting the signature of the witnesses has
been complied with. Therefore, the certificate of marriage
issued by the marriage officer is conclusive proof of the fact of
marriage, due consent of the parties to the marriage. In such
cases, it is not open to say that the marriage was illegal or
invalid because, certain formalities required by the Act were not
followed. The legislature intended that, if this had not been
provided, then the persons other than the parties to the
marriage certificate could also prove the defect in the
procedure followed in a particular marriage with the result that
the offsprings of such union would have become illegitimate
children and regarding succession to male spouse, different
course could have followed i.e., the children born from such
alliance could not succeed. To avoid the complication, the law
makers have attached conclusiveness to the certificate of
marriage. The fact that the marriage had solemnized on
- 21 -
NC: 2024:KHC:10541-DB
17.10.2015 is not in dispute, the formalities regarding
signatures of witnesses uttering of certain words as envisaged
under Section 12(2) of the Act having been followed, the
husband cannot now contend that Sections 6(3) and 12(2) of
the Act have not been complied and accordingly, we are of the
considered view that the certificate of marriage issued under
Section 13 is conclusive proof of solemnization of marriage and
point No.(i) is answered accordingly.
Point Nos.(ii) and (iii):
23. Point Nos.(ii) and (iii) are taken up together to
avoid repetition of facts.
24. Section 25 of the SM Act reads as under:
"25. Voidable marriages.―Any marriage
solemnized under this Act shall be voidable and may
be annulled by a decree of nullity if,―
(i) the marriage has not been consummated
owing to the wilful refusal of the respondent
to consummate the marriage; or
(ii) the respondent was at the time of the
marriage pregnant by some person other than
the petitioner; or
- 22 -
NC: 2024:KHC:10541-DB
(iii) the consent of either party to the
marriage was obtained by coercion or
fraud, as defined in the Indian Contract
Act, 1872 (9 of 1872):
Provided that, in the case specified in clause
(ii), the court shall not grant a decree unless it is
satisfied,―
(a) that the petitioner was at the time of the
marriage ignorant of the facts alleged;
(b) that proceedings were instituted within a year
from the date of the marriage; and
(c) that marital intercourse with the consent of
the petitioner has not taken place since the
discovery by the petitioner of the existence of
the grounds for a decree:
Provided further that in the case specified
in clause (iii), the court shall not grant a
decree if,―
(a) proceedings have not been instituted
within one year after the coercion had
ceased or, as the case may be, the fraud
had been discovered; or
- 23 -
NC: 2024:KHC:10541-DB
(b) the petitioner has with his or her free
consent lived with the other party to the
marriage as husband and wife after the
coercion had ceased or, as the case may
be, the fraud had been discovered."
(emphasis supplied)
25. Section 25(iii) of the SM Act envisages that the
Court can grant a decree on the ground that any marriage
solemnized under SM Act can be voidable if the consent of
either party to the marriage is obtained by coercion or fraud.
Sub-clause (iii) of Section 25 of the SM Act clearly envisages
that fraud and coercion are the other grounds on which a
decree of annulment of marriage has been provided. The
Section has described the scope of definition by making it clear
that "fraud and coercion" will have the same meaning as
defined in the Indian Contract Act. "Fraud" is defined under
Section 17 and "coercion" is defined in Section 15 of the Indian
Contract Act, 1872.
Section 15 "coercion" reads as under:
"15. 'Coercion' defined.--'Coercion' is
the committing, or threatening to commit, any act
forbidden by the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)
or the unlawful detaining, or threatening to
- 24 -
NC: 2024:KHC:10541-DB
detain, any property, to the prejudice of any
person whatever, with the intention of causing
any person to enter into an agreement.
Explanation.--It is immaterial whether the
Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) is or is not in
force in the place where the coercion is
employed."
Section 17 "Fraud" means as under:
"17. 'Fraud' defined.--'Fraud' means and
includes any of the following acts committed by a
party to a contract, or with his connivance, or by
his agent, with intent to deceive another party
thereto of his agent, or to induce him to enter
into the contract:--
(1) the suggestion, as a fact, of that which is not
true, by one who does not believe it to be
true;
(2) the active concealment of a fact by one
having knowledge or belief of the fact;
(3) a promise made without any intention of
performing it;
(4) any other act fitted to deceive;
(5) any such act or omission as the law specially
declares to be fraudulent.
- 25 -
NC: 2024:KHC:10541-DB
Explanation.--Mere silence as to facts likely
to affect the willingness of a person to enter into
a contract is not fraud, unless the circumstances
of the case are such that, regard being had to
them, it is the duty of the person keeping silence
to speak, or unless his silence, is, in itself,
equivalent to speech."
26. For an annulment of marriage under Section 25(iii)
of the SM Act, it is important to prove that the consent for the
marriage was obtained by coercion or fraud as defined in Indian
Contract Act. The husband contended that he was taken to the
office of the Marriage Registrar after he being confined in a
lockup and he was pressurized to sign the marriage register,
there is no volunteering on the part of the husband to the
marriage. The material on record would, on the other hand,
reveal various aspects which makes this Court to disbelieve the
contention of the husband and we say so for the following
reasons:
(i) on 11.09.2015, Exs.P-5 notice of marriage intended
issued by marriage officer, sub-registrar Gouribidaur, on the
notice for intended marriage by the parties at Ex.P-8 in the
prescribed form for solemnization of the marriage and the said
- 26 -
NC: 2024:KHC:10541-DB
notice for intended marriage was duly signed by the husband
and wife along with the signatures of the attesting witnesses,
the notice was accompanied with the documents for age
verification i.e., SSLC marks card and the aadhaar card of the
appellant-husband as well as the respondent-wife. Exs.P-9 and
P-10 pertains to the husband and Exs.D-17 and D-20 are the
documents pertaining to the respondent-wife.
(ii) Ex.P-13 is the joint affidavit of both the parties
dated 11.09.2015 about their intention to marry.
(iii) Ex.P-14 is the register of the marriage and the
signature of the parties in the register.
(iv) Ex.P-1 is the marriage certificate issued after one
month of the notification of the intended marriage and the
marriage was registered on 17.10.2015.
(v) Though the husband tried to contend that he had
given a requisition after 11.09.2015 to the concerned registrar
for canceling the marriage and also contended that he was
confined in the lockup through out the night on 16.10.2015 a
day prior to the marriage registration on 17.10.2015, the said
averments of the husband is not substantiated by any material
- 27 -
NC: 2024:KHC:10541-DB
record. Therefore, this Court has no option, but to disbelieve
the contention of the husband at the threshold. Moreover,
PW.4-Sub-registrar of Gouribidanur, has categorically in an
unequivocal terms denied about any force of the husband to
get the marriage solemnized, the voluntary act of the husband
when he had come for solemnization of marriage has been
spoken to by PW.4. PW.4 has categorically stated that only on
consent of both the parties, the marriage registration would
take place. On perusal of the evidence of PW.4, at no stretch
of imagination, it can be presumed that the consent to
marriage was made by coercion/fraud as pleaded by the
husband. The photographs produced at Exs.D-1 to D-16
nowhere indicate about an isolation or any force being played
upon the husband for entering into the marriage before the
Sub-registrar on 17.10.2015.
27. All these aspects clearly show that the conduct of
the appellant-husband knocks the bottom out the allegation of
the appellant-husband having been threatened. Thus, from the
material stated above, it is clear that the husband has
voluntarily consented for marriage and the solemnization of
- 28 -
NC: 2024:KHC:10541-DB
marriage and the solemnization of marriage cannot be declared
void.
28. The fact that the appellant and the respondent have
been known to each other since 2013 and they were in cordial
relationship is not in dispute. PW.1 to PW.4's evidence no way
support the case of the husband to prove that he had entered
into solemnization of marriage under coercion, duress or fraud.
29. The circumstances enumerated above do not make
us believe the theory of appellant-husband's consent having
been obtained under coercion or of any fraud having practiced
on him. The grounds urged are not sufficient for annulling the
marriage and the husband has failed to prove that there was
any coercion or fraud in practice before the Sub-registrar
making him to sign or subscribe his signature by force. The
trial Court has rightly dismissed the petition filed by the
husband under Section 25(iii) of the SM Act and has allowed
the petition filed by the wife under Section 22 for restitution of
conjugal rights warranting no interference by this Court and
accordingly, point Nos.(ii) and (iii) are answered against the
appellant-husband. Hence the following:
- 29 -
NC: 2024:KHC:10541-DB
ORDER
(i) The appeals are dismissed.
(ii) The impugned orders of the Courts below stand
confirmed.
No order as to costs.
In view of dismissal of the appeal, pending I.As. if
any would stand disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
S*
