Sri. M.K. Henry Madhukar vs Smt. Soumya M.P.

B. Manohar, J.—Appellant is the Petitioner before the Court below. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 8-12-2009 made in M.C. No. 63/2007, he has filed this appeal.

The brief facts of the case are as follows:

The Petitioner filed a petition u/s 18 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 seeking for annulment of marriage solemnized on 6-10-2005. The Petitioner has contended that he is a permanent resident of Chitradurga and he belongs to Christian Community and Protestant group. Their family is having faith on Christianity and he is working as a teacher in a Government School. The marriage of the Petitioner and Respondent was arranged by both the families. The father of the Respondent visited the Petitioner''s house about 3 to 4 times for the marriage settlement. The Petitioner has seen the Respondent before the marriage. Their Engagement was arranged on 29-5-2005 at the house of the Respondent at Pavagada. Thereafter, date of marriage and place was fixed and the same was published on 18-9-2005. According to the Petitioner both families of Petitioner and Respondent got printed the Invitation Cards fixing the marriage at Anjaneya Shetty Kalyana Mantapa, Shira road, at Pavagada. In presence of the parents of the Petitioner and Respondent and their well-wishers, family members and also 3 Fathers of various churches were also present on the said date and the marriage was celebrated peacefully on 6-10-2005. From the date of marriage, the Respondent was residing in the house of the Petitioner. Due to their wedlock, she got premature abortion earlier, subsequently she gave birth to a male child on 20-6-2007.

It is averred in the plaint averments that the marriage was not conducted in accordance with the Christian Marriage Act. As per the Christian Marriage Act, marriage has to be conducted in a Church and the Father must notify the date and place of the marriage. It is his contention that if the marriage is conducted outside the church, the said marriage is not a valid marriage. As per the customs and rituals, the 7 tray has not been exchanged regarding conduct of the marriage. The publishing of the invitation cards, fixing the date and place of the marriage as Anjaneya Shetty Kalyana Mantapa was not made known to the Petitioner and the marriage was conducted in a hurry stating that Immanial Prarthana Mandir, Pavagada was under repair. Hence, he contends that the marriage itself is an invalid marriage and contrary to the Christian Marriage Act, 1872

The Petitioner further alleges that the Respondent has short sight and the said fact was also not brought to the notice of the Petitioner before the marriage. It is alleged that within a period of 4 months of stay in the marital house, the Respondent visited the parental house for 8 to 10 days. Further, in February 2006, without seeking permission, she left the marital house and at that time she was pregnant and she got aborted in parent''s house. Due to the abortion, the Petitioner and his family members has to suffer mentally. The Respondent was not interested to return to the marital house. Thereafter, a Panchayat was convened in June 2006, as a result of which, the Respondent joined the Petitioner at marital house. She informed the Petitioner that she had affairs with somebody and that is why she got aborted her first pregnancy. Further, the Respondent failed to produce the Marriage Certificate though the demand has been made even after 7 months of their marriage. Further, on 1-1-2007, she left the marital house. Subsequently, the Petitioner came to know that the Respondent has given birth to a child on 20-6-2007. In view of the conduct of the Respondent and also that the marriage was not conducted in accordance with the Christian Marriage Act, the Petitioner filed a petition seeking for a decree of nullity of marriage.

In pursuance to the notice issued by the Court below, the Respondent entered appearance and filed her statement of objections. She denied the allegations made in the plaint, however, admitted that their marriage was held on 6-10-2005 as per their customs at Anjaneya Shetty Kalyana Mantapa in the presence of family members, Fathers and well-wishers. The Respondent has further contended that originally the Petitioner and his parents are not original Christian Protestants but they are converted Christians. The father of the Petitioner originally belongs to Besthara Community. Further, the Respondent''s parents belong to Bhavasara Kshatriya Community and they born in Hindu Religion. Therefore, the marriage was performed in Anjaneya Shetty Kalyana Mantapa, Pavagada. The father of the Petitioner retired from the Government Service and his mother is a Drama Artist both are hale and healthy The Petitioner is having two sisters, by name and Hema and Sumathi and they are married. The allegations made against the Respondent that she is blind is not correct. The marriage was solemnized after all formalities are over, like marriage negotiations, talks and distributions of wedding cards. It was an arranged marriage and photos have been taken at the time of Engagement. The Petitioner has seen the Respondent at the time of Engagement and after seeing the Respondent, he agreed for the proposal and Engagement was conducted. The entire marriage expenses were borne by the parents of the Respondent. The Marriage has been consummated. At the time of marriage, the father of the Respondent had paid Rs. 50,000/- as dowry to the Petitioner. After the marriage, Petitioner and Respondent lived happily in the marital home for a period of six months. She has denied the allegation that she left the marital house without permission in 2005. She has contended that during her stay with the Petitioner in Chitradurga she was pregnant, however, Petitioner and his parents took the Respondent to Krishna Nursing Home and got her aborted forcibly against the Will of the Respondent. The parents of the Petitioner and his sisters were harassing her and ill-treating her during her stay in the matrimonial house to bring additional dowry from her parents. Since she expressed her inability, they took the Respondent to Krishna Nursing Home and got forcibly aborted. They were pressurizing the Respondent to give consent divorce so that, the Petitioner can have a second marriage with a rich girl. Since the Petitioner and his family members have not changed their attitude, several Panchayats have been convened. As per the advice of Panchayatdaars, in June 2006, the Petitioner took her to marital house. Within a period of 7 months, the Respondent became pregnant for the second time. The Petitioner and his parents and sisters once again started ill-treating and neglecting the Respondent. They have tortured the Respondent physically and mentally and beaten her in a cruel manner stating that they will finish her. However, she was saved by the neighbours. Ultimately, she was kicked out of the marital house on 1-1-1007 when she was pregnant of 3 months. Thereafter, she started residing in the parental house and she gave birth to a child on 20-6-2007. The same was informed to the Petitioner over telephone, but nobody came to see the newly born child and the Respondent. In view of that, the Respondent filed a maintenance case to maintain herself and the newly born child. With a view to avoid payment of maintenance, the present divorce petition has been filed making baseless allegations against the Respondent and hence, she sought for dismissal of the petition.

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Court below framed the following point:

Whether the Petitioner has made out an acceptable ground to grant the decree of divorce of their marriage which was solemnized on 6-10-2005 as claimed in the petition?

The Petitioner in order to prove his case examined himself as P.W. 1 and got examined two Fathers of the Church as P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 and got marked documents as Ex. P.1 to 10. On behalf of the Respondent, the Respondent examined herself as R.W. 1.

The Court below considering the oral and documentary evidence let in by the parties held the Issue against the Petitioner consequently dismissed the divorce petition by its judgment and decree dated 8-12-2009 made in M.C. No. 63/2007 on the ground that the Petitioner has not made out sufficient grounds to prove that the marriage was performed by misrepresentation or fraud.

The Petitioner being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 8-12-2009 filed this appeal.

Sri. M. Babu Rao, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant contended that the judgment and decree passed by the Court below is contrary to law and Indian Christian Marriage Act. The marriage conducted outside the Church cannot be treated as a valid marriage whereas the Father had notified the marriage at Immanial Church. In violation of the said notification, the marriage was conducted at Anjaneya Shetty Kalyana Mantapa, which is contrary to the Indian Christian Marriage Act and also the marriage is not in accordance with law. Even after 7 months of the marriage, Marriage Certificate was not produced. Further the Respondent is blind. Suppressing this material fact, the marriage was celebrated. Hence, the marriage is nullity in the eye of law and sought for allowing the appeal setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the Court below.

We have carefully gone through the arguments addressed by the learned Counsel for the parties and oral and documentary evidence led by the parties.

It is not in dispure that the marriage between the Petitioner and the Respondent was solemnized on 6-10-2005 at Anjaneya Shetty Kalyana Mantapa as per their customs and rituals in presence of the family members, well-wishers and the Fathers of the Church. The allegation of the Appellant is that the marriage was not conducted in accordance with the Indian Christian Marriage Act. Further suppressing the material fact that the Respondent having blindness and extra marital relation with some other person, the marriage was celebrated which is contrary to law and sought for a decree of divorce by declaring the marriage as null and void.

In order to prove his case, the Petitioner examined himself as P.W. 1 and reiterated the averments made in the petition. He admits that the Engagement was conducted on 29-5-2005. He had visited the house of the Respondent, photos and videos have been taken in the Engagement Function and also in the marriage celebration. He admitted that both the parties agreed to conduct the marriage at Anjaneya Shetty Kalyana Mantapa. He has not protested the conducting of marriage at the said Kalayana Mantapa. He also admitted that they lived together for a period of six months at Chitradurga. However, he denied that he has forcefully aborted the Respondent. After the dispute was resolved between the parties with the help of Panchayatdaars, the Respondent stayed in the marital house for seven months. He has denied that on 1-1-12007, the Respondent was pregnant for 4 months. He has also shown his ignorance to the Respondent giving birth to a male child on 20-6-2007. He has admitted in his cross-examination that he took the Respondent to Krishna Nursing Home for 2 to 3 times. He has further deposed that he has not made any complaint regarding holding of marriage at the said Kalyana Mantapa. He has deposed that he was a born Christian.

P.W. 2. the Father of the Church of Chitradurga deposed he was one of the guests of the marriage. The marriage was performed in Anjaneya Shetty Kalyana Mantapa, Pavagada without any objections. Another Father of the Chitradurga Church was also present in the marriage and he conducted the formalities. He is not aware whether the Petitioner and Respondent came to their Church after the marriage. He was not aware of the marital relations of the Respondent and he was aware of Ex. P.7 prior to the marriage. He admits that in the notice, place of marriage was not Published.

P.W. 3-the Father of Pavagada Church also deposed that he has attended the Engagement of the Petitioner and Respondent and he has stated that both the families agreed to perform the marriage at Anjaneya Shetty Kalyana Mantapa, the invitations were also printed by showing the place. The marriage invitations were sent to both the churches. He deposed that he has attended the marriage along with P.W. 2. The marriage was performed without any disturbance. Hence, it is clear that the marriage has been performed in Anjaneya Shetty Kalyana Mantapa as per the wishes of both the families, The Fathers of both the Churches have also not objected for the marriage being conducted at the said Kalyana Mantapa.

The Respondent in her evidence deposed that she has studied up to II year PUC. She denied that the marriage was alleged to have been performed in Immanial Church. She has denied that she was having affairs with another boy and she also denied that child did not born from the said marriage. She admits that she is having short sight she denied that she used to go to her parents'' house without intimation. She denied that she left the marital house once prior to giving birth to the male child. The Petitioner and his family member forcibly aborted her against her will. In her evidence, she has deposed regarding the difficulty she faced in the marital house and the ill-treatment meted out to her by the Petitioner and his family members and also the demand of dowry by the Petitioner. She also deposed that she had filed maintenance petition seeking maintenance.

From the evidence of the parties it is very clear that the objections raised by the Petitioner is that the marriage was not conducted in the Church and the Respondent is blind. Regarding the blindness, the Respondent has denied the said allegation in her evidence. The Respondent has studied up to II year PUC. Before the marriage, the Petitioner had seen the Respondent and the Engagement was also conducted. The marriage has been consummated and she had become pregnant and she was aborted by the Petitioner and his family members at Krishna Nursing Home. Thereafter, the dispute between the parties has been resolved. Again she became pregnant, when she was pregnant of 3 months, she was thrown out of the marital house and she gave birth to a male child on 20-6-2007. The evidence led by the Petitioner regarding blindness cannot be accepted. With regard to conducting of marriage at Kalyana Mantapa, both the parties had agreed to perform the marriage at Anjaneya Shetty Kalyana Mantapa, invitation cards were printed; the Fathers of the Churches had also not objected for the performance of the marriage at the said Kalyana Mantapa and they had attended the marriage. The marriage was celebrated very peacefully by the Fathers according to their customs. As per the Indian Christian Marriage Act, celebrating the marriage outside the Church will not become the void marriage. With the consent of the parties, marriage can be celebrated outside the Church. The entire case of the Petitioner was that the marriage was not performed in accordance with the Indian Christian Marriage Act and for that reason, a decree of divorce could be granted declaring that the marriage is nullity in the eye of law.

Admittedly, the marriage has taken place in the year 2005, two years thereafter, after filing the maintenance petition by the Respondent, the divorce petition has been filed by the Petitioner in the year 2007 on irrelevant ground. The Court below after considering the evidence led by both the parties held that the Petitioner has not made out any case to grant a decree of divorce. We have reappreciated the oral and documentary evidence led by the parties. The Appellant has not made out any case to interfere with the well-considered order passed by the Court below. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.