HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR Fii'st Appeal (M) No.48 of 2007 APpELLANT: Plaintiff Sapna Jaio Versus RESPONDENT: Ra\Tiidra Clioudhar^7 JUDGMENT FOR CONSiDERATION Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge -•.•e-e- Sd/- gnath Chandrakar Judge »»\ POST FOR JUDGMENT ON U AUGUST, Sd/-,,,; „ ""JU D G E 1_0/8/2009 (O' Eirst_A£peal.MJ*<Q.48_of2007 APPELLANT: Plaintiff Sapna Jain, D/o Mr. Motilal dam, aged about 24 years, R/o Bhilai, TsJisil aiid District Diirg ('CG'i Versus RESPONDENT: Ravuidra Choudhary, S/o Mr. Defeiidaiit Gaiigaram Choudhary, aged abo-i.it 29 years, R/o Ruabaiidha sector, M.S.C.L. Colony, 138/A, Bhilai, Tehsil Emd District Diirg (CG$ (Appeal -ander Section 19 oftl-ie FamUy Courts Act, 1984) Preseiit: Sm.t. Meena Shastri, counsel for tlie appeUaiit. -ft, (Delivered ou_ii_Aiigu.st, 2009) The foUowiiig j-adgiaent of the Couit was deUvered by ira, J. ifjy' 1. T'his aupeal under .Section 19 of fhe Familv Courts Act, 1984, is dii-ected agamst tlie.judgiueut aiid decree dated 8-6-2007 passed iti Civil Suit No.63-A/06 whereby leaiTied 3rd Additional principal Jiidge, Fam.Uy Coilrt, Durg, has disiuissed her applicatioa iiiider Sectioa 12 (3) {sliou'Id'Iiave been 12 (l)(c)} offhe Hilidii Maniage Act, 1955 for declailiig her aianiage dated 22-12-2005 Vvitii fhe respondent as ni.ill aad void. 2. T'he appellant ffled fhe above applicatio'li with fhe aveniients fhat she cazae uito contact witll ffae respondent oiily 20 clays before 'the alleged inan-iage while attending coaclixng class. On 22-12-2005, he took her ia a Sunio jeep on fhe pretext of droppiag her to coaching class. He was accom.panied by 3 otlier bo;.-'s, who took her to Supela, Aiya Samaj Majidir despite her resistaiice aiid obtaiiied her signatures on various docuiuents by undue pressure aad threat of life. 'Thereafter, Tjie respondeut declared hiinself to be her husbaild aixl took ber to his dweUiiig house aiid kept her for 1 .rt<ii»lt"~-W^ .^rf^^.:,. '''t--. ^. 9 '9..,., <.,—,,. 1:i ^ t'^.^';.^:';:ffl'. i.i ^ '^^^^'fM., ^ y .^ ^s. davs despite her contiiiuous resistaxice. Her parents searched for her iii the raeaawhile aiid lodged Uie report on 21-12-2005. When tliey learaed about tlie laan-iage with the respondent, they tiied to contact her, hovvever, the respondeiit aiid liis frieads did not allow fheiu to laeet Gie appeUaiit. She somehow siaiiaged to escape aad lodged tlie report iii Maliila Police Station. The respondent appUed before the SDO, Bhiiai for production of the appeUaiit, however, on tlie basis of her stateineat tliat she was willfuUy residm.g with ber parents, the appiication was rejected. 3. The respondent in his reply to tlie application denied tiie allegatioas and subiaitted that tlie appellaiit aad ti.ie respondent were ui love witll each other. The appellaiit has filed tliis applicatioa diie to faiaily pressure, as her pai-ents aud sister did aot approve tiieir relationship. They had applied for m.amage ia Supela, Aiya Sasnaj Ollice on 1-12-2005, thereafter she voluntai-ily accoinpaiiied him. to Durg on 21-12-2005 aiicl swom tlie affidavit for iiiai'riage before a Notaiy. Thereaiter, tlie raaniage was soleianized on 22-12-2005 voluntEu-uy -w-ith her conseii't and ia flie presence of w7itaesses by tlie priest. After the Hiamage, t.b.e appeUaiit resided wuh him. iii his liouse. T'he parents of tlie appellant did not approve her m.arnage with tlie respondent an.d tliey forcibly took lier from. his house vritli the connivaiice ofpolice persoruiels. The respondent 1-iad coinplejiied agaiiist tlie aliove act of tlie police to tlie Seiiior Superintendent of Police. Duiiiig enquin- by tlie poMce, it was fol.uid tliat pai-ents of tlie appellaiit had seiit her to Daiaoh. 4. Oa fhe basis ofpleadiags oftiie x'espective pardes, the Faniuy Court framed issues. 5. The appellaat filed dociuiients froin Ex.-A/l to 'Ex.-A/7."T'he appeUaiit examraed herself aiid her inother Saroj Jain. However, tiie respondent was proceeded ex-parte on 16-4-2007 aad his application dated 2-5-2007 for settiiig aside ex-parte order was rejected by fiie Fainily Court on 2-6-2007 •• it.setf aad no witaess was examined on bel'iatf of tlie respondent. 6. 'The Fainily Court disinissed tlie application wifh a fmdm.g fhat tlie appellaiit has failed to prove Uiat her m.aiiiage dated 22-12-2005 was soleianized witliout her free consent; she has also failed to prove tliat she was detaiG.ed b;,- the respondent contmiiously for 12 days despite her y,^ '// Vg^ '^•^?3- resistaiice aiid, Uierefore, fhe appeUaiit is not entitled for a decree of declaration tliat the laarriage is nuU and void. 7. Siat. Meena Shastri, leanied counsel for llie appeUant vehemently ai'gued tliat Tlie fuidhig of the Fainily Court ia the iiapugned judgiaent is based on •Lmproper appreciation of evidence available on record a-nd ttie same is peiverse and not sustaitiable iil law. The Family Court failed to appreciate fhat die appeUant caaie iiito contact wifh fhe responde.nt oiily iii the laoiith of Deceiiiber, 2005. She had Tvitlidrawn herself froui his couipaiiy just 12 days of the nian'iage after discovering fraud. The niaiTiage was solenuiized by Diisrepresentation fhat the respondent has his own quarter whereas, his quarter was allottcd iu ttie nam.e of ofher person. The appeilaQt iD.ade categorical statement before tlie Mallila Police Station that she was pressu.rized ao.cl coiapelled to sign the docuinents aud her signatures were obtamed under thi'eat aiid diu'ess. She furflier argued that froia tJae iiiaiTiage dociliaents filed by the appeliant, it would be eyident fhat tlie iiiamage was iiot perfoniied in accordance witii the rules aad by-laws of San'adeshik Ar,-a Pratiiudhi Sabha and, therefore, fhe same cannot be teiTaed to be valid raaiTiage. 8. We have heai'd leamed counsel for the appellaiit. We have perused tlie impugned judgaient. We have also pei-used tlie pleadings of the respective parties, docuin.ents filed by ffaeia as also fhe docuiaents wliich have been produced by tlie appeUaiit. at tlie appeUate stage i.e. rules of niarriage iti An-a Samai. 9. Leai-ned Family Cuuit, whiie dealmg wifh issiie No.l - whetlier fiie ruaniage bf the appeUant was soleianized withoiit her fre^-consent with respondent on 22-12-2005, after elaborately discussiiig tlieoral evidence > avaaabje on record, has held that the appellaiit has accepted her signatures m. the sdEdavit before fhe Notary, fhe Notaiy has uot been examined to estalblish that. her signatures were obtaiiied under cluress aiid that she signed the affidavit before the Notai-y of her own free wffl. Froin her cross-exainuiation, it is iiyther endeiit that on fiie veiy next day she accoinpanied the respondent to Aiya Samaj Mandjr and laarried fhe respoadent. She has not disputed her sigaatures over tlie docusients of Ar'.'a Saxaaj includiag her signatures over certi&cate of niaiTiage. She has nowhe.re claim.ed tliat her sigaatures were obtaitied by force or she was coiapeUed to sign the above docuiueuts by Ar)'a Saniaj Maiidir. She has ,!<"•; :-" '•; ^ ^-^.•^ ""^,- ' i also claimed that she lodged coiaplau'lt before fhe Maliila PoUce Station on 3rd Januaiy 2006, but no docLLments have been produced to estabUsh tliat any such coinplaint was luade by her on 3-1-2006 and'accordiiigly, the above coiltention was disbeUeved. lO.T'he version of her niotlier Saroj Jaui has been disbelieved on tlie grouiid fhat froia her evidence, it is evident tliat she is not eyCTvitaess of tlie fact fliat ber daughter was taken forcibly by Qie appeUEm.t in Suino Jeep, as she had herself deposed ftiat when her daughter did not retuni, she lodged inissiiig report ia the police station, which clearly shows tiiat she was not awai'e as to where slie had gone and her evidence tliat fhe respondent forcibly took her is false and fabricated aiid accordiagly, auswerecl Issue No. 1 agaiiist the appellaiit. 1;. On fui-tlier appreciation of evideace of tlie appellaut. aiid her laother Sai-oj Jam, the Family Court further held fhat. ffae appellaat Uyed with the respondent for 12 days on her own free wffi and accordhigly, it. has been held ttiat tlie appeUaiit is not entitled for aiiv decree of declaration that the rn.aiTia.ge dated 22-12-2005 between tlie appellailt aad fhe respoiideut is nuU and void and accoidiagly, lier suit has been disiaissed. 12. It is settled law tliat in an a.ppUcation under Section 12 (l)(c) for aiiiiiilnient of Eiarriage on tlie ground tliat tlie inardage was soleiiiiiized by obtaitiiag consent of tlie appellant by force or fraud, Uie burdeu of proving tlie existeiice of such fact is on the person who aUeges its existence aad presuinption is in favour of the validitt- of Uie xuarriage and in. favoiu- of laeiital capacin' of spouses entering iuto irtarital tie. IS.After careful exaiaination ofthe entu-e evidence available on.record, we are of the opixiion that fhe finduig of the Fguiifly Co'drt is based 011 pleadiags of the respective patties and evidence avaflable on record. The Family Court, after ineticulously dealiiig wifh fhe evidence available on record in deta.il, has held tliat ihe appellant has failed to prove her case aad accordingly, disinissed fhe appUcation. 14.So fai' as contention ofleaiTLed counsel for tlie appellaat that. ttie niamage itself was not in accoitiance witli the niles of Arya Sainaj is Concei-ned, fa'stly tlie said objection was not talcen by the appeliailt ill her application under Section 12 (l)(c) of tlie Act and secondly, fhe docujnents fhat has beeii sought to be taken on record by tiie appeUaat duruig flie peiidency of ,.<"': • .A ^^/ mis appeal do not reveal ttiat the said by-laws were framed under any statiitor;- provision. !n aiiy case, wbether tiie procedure foBowed by Arva Sam.aj Maiidii' was iil accordan.ee witll the said by-laws is a question of fact. 15.0n the basis ofaforesaid discussion, we ai-e oftlie opinion fhat fhere is no fflegalift- or infii-raih- iii tlie jiidgiaent of the Famiiy Court WEu.Tanting ititerference in flie irapugned judginent. 16.In tlie result, flie appeal being devoid of substaiice deserves to be aad is accordingly disinissed. Barve Sd/- Dbirendra Mishra Judge Sd/- Rangnatt Chwdrskar