In the High Court of Judicature at Patna Misc. Appeal No.315 of 2010 Seema Kumari daughter of Late Gajadhar Vishwakarma, wife of Sri Pintu Kumar Vishwakarma, resident of village – Safiyasarai, P.S.- Narayan Nagar, District Munger ........ Appellant Versus Pintu Kumar Vishwakarma, son of late Shivshankar Vishwakarma, resident of Muhalla- Daulatpur, Quarter No.- 562 AB, P.S. Jamalpur, District Munger .......Respondent --------------- 4 30-06-2011 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This appeal has been preferred against the judgement and order dated 6-3-2010 in T.S. (Divorce case) No. 14/2006 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Munger whereby the suit filed by the respondent, Pintu Kumar Vishwakarma for declaring his marriage with the appellant to be null and void has been allowed. 3. On behalf of the appellant, it has been submitted that learned court below has not appreciated the evidence available on record and has given an erroneous finding that the marriage was solemnized by pressure, coercion and force without consent of the applicant. 4. In order to appreciate the evidence of the 2 witnesses from both sides, it is deemed relevant to note certain salient and admitted facts. 5. The marriage is said to have been solemnized on 1-3-2006 in a temple at Sojhighat in the district of Munger. On that date itself the mother of the applicant reported to the police at about 11 PM in the night that her son, Pintu Kumar Vishwakarma had been kidnapped in a car at about 2 PM in the afternoon for the purpose of marriage. The Sanha entries of the Jamalpur PS are on record and show that the police party went to the house of late Gajadhar Vishwakarma and recovered the applicant in the night itself. On her statement Jamalpur PS case no. 23/06 was recorded on 2-3-2006 and these facts find mentioned in another Sanha entry recorded at 1.30 PM on 2-3-2006. The present proceeding for declaring the marriage null and void was instituted on 6-3-2006. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant took us through the evidence of all the four witnesses examined on behalf of applicant including the deposition of the applicant as AW-1. The applicant has supported his case 3 that he was forcibly made to sit in an Ambassador car by 4-5 unknown persons when he was going for duty in the afternoon of 1-3-2006 after taking meals at his quarter. He was taken to Sojhighat in a temple and confined in a room. The opposite party/ appellant was also present there. His marriage was solemnized with the appellant and at about 4.30 PM. He was taken to the house of the appellant from where police recovered him at about 1.30 in the night on the basis of information of kidnapping given by his mother. In cross-examination he has clarified that the criminal case for kidnapping is still pending. He has alleged that he was given few slaps for forcing him to sit in the car and that he did not marry the appellant of his freewill and that the marriage was never consummated. He has denied the suggestion that any formality of selecting the girl and looking at her ever took place in a house of a Pundit. He also denied the suggestion of demand of Rs. 4-5 lacs by way of dowry by his mother. 7. AW-2, Ashok Vishwakarma is brother of applicant. He has supported the occurrence in which 4 some unknown persons kidnapped the applicant in an Ambassador car in the afternoon of 1-3-2006 which led to lodging of information with the police and recovery of his brother, the applicant. He has also deposed that his brother, Pintu Kumar Vishwakarma subsequently told him about the occurrence that he was kidnapped and also assaulted. 8. AW-3, Khanna Paswan has claimed to be a hearsay witness who heard that Pintu Kumar was caught and then married. 9. AW-4, Shyam Kumar has claimed to have seen Pintu Kumar being kidnapped by some persons. He has fairly stated that he did not see the brother of Pintu near the place of occurrence but he has given necessary details and has disclosed that Pintu was given few slaps and he was crying. 10. On the other hand altogether 11 witnesses have been examined on behalf of Opposite party/appellant. 11. OPW 1 is Seema Kumari, the appellant. She has asserted that her marriage with Pintu Kumar on 5 1-3-2006 in a temple at Sojhighat was without putting any force or pressure upon Pintu Kumar. Pintu Kumar had been appointed in railway in place of his father. His family members were not present in the marriage. According to her the marriage was fixed by her mother in consultation with the mother of Pintu Kumar and as per agreement marriage was solemnized in a temple. She has alleged that mother of Pintu Kumar was asking for dowry and, hence, Pintu went to her house in a car and married her. She has claimed that after marriage she was in the house of Pintu Kumar for 2-3 days. The marriage was solemnized by Pramod Pundit (OPW 11). According to her the marriage was consummated. In cross examination she has admitted that there was no love affair between her and Pintu Kumar and there had been no exchange of letters etc. or secret meetings. She could not point out any reason as to why Pintu came to her house for marriage. She named one Jamuna Babu and another person Daroga Baba as two independent persons who attended the marriage but those two have not been examined. According to her there was a feast after the 6 marriage in which Puri, vegetables and Rasogulla were served and after the marriage her husband took her by a car to his own house. Her mother-in-law was not in the house but had gone to her Naihar. She could not disclose in which direction the door of the bedroom was situated or the names of neighbours who came to see her nor any mark of identification on the body of her alleged husband. She denied that the marriage was solemnized by force. 12. OPW 2, Nirmala Devi is mother of the appellant. She has claimed that five persons from the side of boy had attended the marriage and that the boy used to come and meet the girl since three months prior to the marriage and the marriage was solemnized with consent of boy’s mother. According to her the girl stayed in her husband’s house for two days and then both of them came to her house. 13. OPW 3, Bideshi Choudhary, OPW 4, Dharmveer Kumar and OPW 5, Prakash Tanti have claimed to have seen the marriage on 1-3-2006. According to OPW 3, Bideshi Choudhary, Pintu Kumar 7 came to the temple with 4-5 boys and marriage was solemnized in the temple followed by feast and thereafter Pintu proceeded to take the bride to his house. According to him the boy was demanding Rs. 2.5 lacs and a motor cycle. By village relation he has claimed the appellant to be his sister. OPW 4 claimed in cross examination that there were 5-6 persons from the side of Pintu Kumar and 10-12 persons from the side of the appellant in marriage. He has also claimed that after marriage articles kept in two boxes were also gifted which were taken in a car along with the girl. OPW 5, Prakash Tanti has stated in cross examination that he was not invited in the marriage but he saw 4-5 persons with the bridegroom coming in a car. According to him in the feast Puri, vegetables and Bundiya were served. 14. OPW 6, Sheo Shankar Yadav has claimed to have heard from others about the marriage but he did not know who was bridegroom. In cross examination he has admitted that he was brought to depose by brother of the appellant. 15. OPW 7, Aditya Kumar is a car mechanic 8 who claimed that on 28-2-2006 Pintu Kumar came to his garage asking for an Ambassador car on hire and he arranged a car from another person for Rs. 400/- or 300/-. In cross examination he could not disclose the name of the car owner or the number of vehicle. He further disclosed that he was asked to depose by the appellant and she had told him to anyhow get the matter amicably resolved. 16. OPW 8, Ramesh Vishwakarma is brother of the appellant. He had deposed that Pintu Kumar was known to him from before and had taken money from him which he did not return. He has simply stated that marriage was solemnized on 1-3-2006 in the temple at Sojhighat. He has claimed that in the marriage 100 persons participated in the feast out of which 60 were Baratis. He could not disclose the names of the barber or his father. He claimed that a video cassette was also prepared which would be produced. According to him the face of the boy in the videography was pleasant/ happy but the cassette has not been brought on record. According to him Pintu agreed for the marriage and he 9 made mother of the Pintu agreeable by assuring her that he will give Rs. 2 lacs but not by way of dowry. 17. OPW 9, Leeladhar Pundit has deposed only to the effect that in the summer of 2007, with his permission, some ladies and gents had come to his house to see the appellant for the purpose of marriage negotiation and out of them he recognizes Pintu Kumar, the respondent. He further stated that at the time of such negotiation he was in a shop and not at his house. In cross examination he has admitted that he has good relationship with brother of the appellant. 18. OPW 10, Sunil Kumr Yadav has given a different timing and according to him the marriage could be solemnized at 7 PM. According to him there were 20- 25 persons in the marriage. No person from the family of Pintu Kumar was present. He claimed that 3-4 friends of Pintu were present but he does not recognize them. He does not recognize father of Pintu. He admitted that he had no invitation of the marriage and he has no relation in the village of appellant. He could not disclose the name of appellant’s mother or brother. He claimed that 10 he was called by husband of the appellant. He did not know name of appellant’s father. Later he disclosed the name of Pintu’s father as Sheo Shankar Sharma but did not know when he died. 19. OPW 11, Pramod Mishra claimed to be purohit who solemnized the marriage on 1-3-2006. According to him 10-5 persons were present from both sides. He admitted that he cannot recall the name of any person whose marriage he had solemnized in the year 2007 or even in later years. He claimed to know the appellant from before but not Pintu Kumar. He could not disclose name of any person present in the marriage from the side of Pintu Kumar. In any event, there is no dispute that some sort of marriage was solemnized at the temple in question and the dispute is only whether the marriage was in usual course with the consent of the parties or it was on account of force, coercion and pressure upon Pintu Kumar, the applicant after kidnapping him. 20. The materials on record including the entries in the Sanha of concerned police station fully support the case of the applicant because the marriage 11 was not attended by his family members and the appellant herself admitted that there was no love affair between them from before. It does not appeal to reason that without any love-affair Pintu Kumar would willingly go for marriage all by himself for a marriage which was not solemnized in the house of the girl which is the usual custom but in a temple near a Ghat. The information given to the police by the mother of Pintu Kumar leading to recovery of Pintu Kumar from the house of the appellant falsifies the claim made by the appellant that she went and lived in the house of Pintu Kumar for 2-3 days. There can be no good reason to doubt the recovery of Pintu Kumar from the house of appellant in the night between 1-3-2006/ 2-3-2006 whereafter statement of Pintu appears to have been recorded by the police without loss of any time leading to criminal case for his kidnapping. 21. There are glaring discrepancies in the statement of witnesses examined on behalf of opposite party (appellant) in respect of number of persons participating in the marriage, number of Baratis, items 12 used in the feast and on the whole the case of opposite party and quality of evidence adduced on her behalf appear to be clearly inferior in quality to that of the applicant, Pintu Kumar. 22. All the relevant materials have been considered by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court for coming to the inference that the marriage was without consent of the applicant and was invalid on account of force and coercion. There is no good reason to doubt the claim of the applicant, Pintu Kumar that the marriage was a forced one. 23. We find no good or sufficient reasons to doubt the findings of the learned Principal Judge or for taking a contrary view. There is no merit in this appeal. It is dismissed accordingly. BKS/- (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (V. Nath, J.)