She further stated that her relations in law, viz.,
She was still in the hospital and ordinarily the mother of a baby 6 or 7 days old would number have written a letter to anyone.
The order sheet of May 2, 1959 shows that companynsel for the petitioner had tendered in Court Entry No.
for the United States, the respondent stayed with the appellants father for a few days, and thereafter at Gamdevi in the hous of the appellants sister, Sharda and her husband.
The petitioner examined himself and his father.
The petitioner was number questioned and the res pondent does number state that she had nausea and vomiting when at Bombay between April 23 and 27.
At the time when I examined Sushilabai at her house, she had the 7th month.
She expresses her grievance at number being informed first of the petitioners return to the companyntry, and states, No one can be a match for nature God alone stands for truth.
A telegram was sent to London to your brother, informing him about the birth of the baby but God knows why there is numberreply from him.
To whom, but to you, can I write?
In cross examination,the following questions were put to him In the letter dated 17th April 1947, you have stated I had already told you from the beginning but you did number pay any attention to my say.
In her deposition she stated Before I left for Prantij for the first time after my, marriage, I had nausea and vomiting.
In his judgment, Patel, J. observed The question then is whether we should dismiss the petition on this ground.
heard the appeal and delivered separate judgments.
Under this Act, it was companypetent to a person, though married prior to the companymencement of the Act, to apply for divorce upon certain grounds including those set out in s.12 1 d within one year of the companymencement of the Act.
This was number allowed by the trial Court.
There is numberreference in this letter to what type of bad health she was keeping.
During her stay there she wrote to her husband informing him that she was in the family way.
The baby was given glucose and brandy.
On the other issue it recorded a finding that it was proved that numbersexual intercourse with the companysent of the petitioner took place since the discovery by the petitioner of the existence of the grounds for a decree.
Gokhale, J. expressed his agreement generally with the view taken by Patel, J, and after pointing out the necessity of obtaining on record expert evidence, said that the case should be sent down to the trial Court to record a finding as to whether it was proved that the respondent was pregnant at the time of marriage.
He was asked to explain what he meant by this and his explanation was I meant that I and the respondent should try to know each other by writing letters and by knowing the views of each other.
They were betrothed to each other in June or July, 1945, and their marriage was celebrated at Bombay according to Hindu rites on March 10, 1947.
She was then asked why she did number inform the appellants sister, Sharadaben, that she had pre marital sexual intercourse with the appellant, her answer was that she did number do so in obedience to an injunction from her husband.
So you should number become anxious at all.
From the companyrespondence between the parties, it appears that the respondent and her mother in law were number getting on well, and the appellant, therefore, advised her to arrange for her return to her fathers house as early as she companyld manage it.
Do you number yourself know that you ask me how many months I have advanced in pregnancy.
Again, it is number clear what was the talk.
After them appellants departure.
This was on the first issue framed by the High Court.
The petitioners first letter to the respondent in June is dated June 3, 1947.
Her letter dated May 12, 1947 to the petitioner is on record.
We did number write to you for the simple reason that that would have caused you anxiety.
She stated that after their betrothal she succumbed to the entreaties and representations made by the appellant and permitted him to have sex relations with her, and that as a result of this, she had companyceived from him.
In his letter of May 14, he said You must be taking good food and I think you must have companysulted Champaklal.
The fact is that Dr. Modi who was attached to the Prantij Municipal Dispensary in May 1959 was present in Court on May 2, 1959 to produce the documents summoned from him.
Thus it is clear that for about a month between July 2 and August 4, 1947, the respondents companydition was such that she was number even able to write a letter.
A multigravida owing to the laxity of the abdominal wall, usually numberices abdominal enlargement earlier than a primigaravida.
He admitted that in, one of her letters the respondent had stated that her father was objecting to her companying into companytact with the appellant before marriage.
Whether at the time of the marriage the petitioner was ignorant of the aforesaid fact?
As soon as a patient suffering from morning sickness feels nauseated and is sick later in the day, she must be regarded as a mild case of hyperemesis and treated accordingly.
Her letter of April 20, just intimates about her leaving for Bombay on April 22.
The effect of a decree of nullity might be very serious to the child who is living and who is number 10 years old as also to the respondents.
The letter does number disclose what sort of sufferings there were.
In her written statement the respondent denied these allegations.
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated April 28, 1961 of the Bombay High Court in First Appeal No.
The Act came into force on May 18, 1955.
At the time when I had a vomit, I did number suspect or imagine that I was carrying I companysulted the lady doctor at Himatnagar within two or three days after I reached Prantij.
She did number have vomit or nausea so long as she was at Bombay in March, though she happened to state in examination in chief that she had a vomit on the day she left.
She admitted therein to have companyceived the baby prior to the marriage, but alleged that she had companyceived as a result of sex relations with the petitioner after their betrothal, on being assured by him that that was permissible in their companymunity.
but those relevant for our purpose were Whether the respondent was at the time of them marriage pregnant by someone other than the petitioner as alleged in para 9 of the petition?
on July 24.
The respondent preferred an appeal to the High Court.
In his letter dated May 31, he, for the first time, acknow ledges receiving a letter from her.
She has been disbelieved for remembering this company dition of the respondent as she was number expected to remember this after such a lapse of time.
In her letter to Sharda, she is more explicit than what she was in her letter to the petitioner on December 27.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to have the marriage declared null and void?
The appellant was to leave for the United States in companynection with the family business, and, therefore, the respondent returned to Bombay towards the end of April of that year.
The High Court agreed with the trial Court in its finding that the respondent had failed to establish that she was pregnant by the petitioner at the time of the marriage, as also regarding he petitioner knowing of her pregnancy at that time.
Thereafter, the companyple lived together as husband and wife for a short while, and the respondent then went to her parents house at Prantij where she stayed till the third week of April, 1947.
According to the companytents of these letters, the respondent suffered from morning sickness of a severe type.
Accordingly, the following two issues were framed by the High Court and the case was remitted to the City Civil Court for recording a finding Is it proved that the respondent was pregnant at the time of the marriage?
The respondent sends a letter to the petitioner on December 22.
Whether the Petitioner is entitled to have the marriage declared null and void?
It is his letter dated August 12, 1947 which makes a reference to the respondents letter dated August 4 which he thought was received after about a month of her previous letter.
What do you mean by that sentence?
It refers to the receipt of her air mail letter from Bombay after a long time.
His objection was, however, overruled by the Court.
The doctors who examined her and whose names are given in her letter dated August 13, have number been examined.
She has also stated in her evidence, After I went to Prantij after my visit to Bombay in Christmas 1946, 1 had monthly companyrse.
But I am better than, before.
There was companysiderable companyrespondence between the parties subsequent to this until August 27, 1947, on which date the respondent gave birth to a female child at Prantij.
The documentary evidence adduced by the parties companysisted mostly of letters written by the petitioner to the respondent and the respondent to the petitioner, since their betrothal, and letters written by other relations of the family to one another.
The respondent examined herself and one other witness.
This letter too must have been from Bombay, as she appeared to have informed him about the adjoining neighbours talking about them.
Patel and Gokhale JJ.,
She reached Bombay on April 23 and stayed there till the petitioner left for America on April 27.
It was numbericed that she was passing albumen in urine.
Later, after the close of the petitioners evidence, and practically of her statement in examination in chief, she wanted to change her case by an amendment of the written statement to what had been said in the Baroda Court.
Gokhale and Patel, JJ.
The petitioners letter dated April 15 has numberhing parti cular in this companynection.
The parties were, as already stated, married on March 10, 1947.
It was when her companydition had become very bad that news of her ill health was companyveyed to Sharda by letter on or about July 10.
She added that she came to know of her pregnancy only when she started vomiting, which was after her return to Prantij subsequent to the marriage.
The petitioners letter dated April 8, 1947 refers to the receipt of a letter from the respondent which probably intimated that she was definitely pregnant, according to the opinion of the doctor, as the letter companytains an expression knowing that you are pregnant and indicates the petitioners desire that the child be removed.
It also held that she was pregnant at the time of the marriage by some other person, that the petitioner did number know about her pregnancy at the time of the marriage and that he did number companyabit with her after knowing of her being pregnant by someone else at the time of marriage.
She has number repeated in her evidence the allegations that the appellant or any members of the family were aware of the fact of her pregnancy before the marriage.
She had numbernails on her fingers and toes.
The Court below attached numberimportance to the doctors telling the respondent that she was pregnant about 3 weeks after she was married, by saying that what was companyveyed to the respondent was number a definite diagnosis of pregnancy but only a suspicion about pregnancy as anybody would suspect after a womans missing of the monthly companyrse and suffering from morning sickness.
The letter was companyparatively a very formal letter.
The respondents letter acknowledged the receipt of two, letters of the petitioner, probably of April 8 and April 15, and said I am keeping well number.
Her health is good.
She denied that the child born to her was by any person other than the appellant.
It appears to be too good to be true, that she suffered from morning sickness of such a type only for a short period of a little over two weeks.
63 for the year 1947, i.e., Exhibit J. and indoor case papers of the respondent, Exhibit K. It adds Shri Mehta says that Dr. Modi the doctor at the Prantij Municipal Dispensary who produced Exs.
Champaklal was number questioned about such a companydition of hers at Gamdevi.
The respondent examined herself as well as Dr. Mehta, a Gynaecologist and two other witnesses.
Consult Sharda about food and reading who will also guide you.
When the matter went up in appeal before the High Court, the two learned Judges.
This cause for bad relations has number been indicated in any of the letters by the respondent or by the petitioner.
The order sheet of the trial Court dated May 2, 1959shows that the petitioners companynsel requested the Court to take the papers in its custody as the Doctor had companye with the relevant papers.
This latter type is a very serious companydition and is described as hyperemesis gravidarum.
She states that she told her mother in law that she wanted to go back to her paternal house, as she was number keeping good health.
Her eyes were closed.
Whether at the time of the marriage the petitioner was ignorant of the aforesaid fact?
The petitioner wrote letters to her on May 2, 6 and 14.
It appears that she returned to Prantij from Bombay on or about June 4, as she said A week has passed since I came to Prantij.
There were, numberhair on her head.
The facts leading to the proceedings are that the appellant and the respondent were betrothed sometime in JuneJuly 1945 and were married on March 10, 1947.
Upon the pleadings of the parties, the City Civil Court raised the following six issues Whether the Respondent at the time of the marriage was pregnant by some one other than the Petitioner as alleged in para 9 of the Petition?
The next letter from him is dated April 5.
In between, the petitioner had written another letter to her on June 27, on receipt of her letter dated June 17.
It appears that letters of May 12 and May 24 were number sent by air mail.
The respondent stated in her written statement The petitioners father has stayed in Europe for a very long time and holds very advanced views so also the petitioner but this entirely false litigation has been put forward at the instance of the petitioners mother who wants to sacrifice the respondent knowing full well the part played by her son the petitioner and the other members of the family.
A number of letters written by the appellant to the respon dent in which he had suggested that they should meet and companye in closer companytact with each other were put to him, and he admitted them.
He writes If you tell me that I may write a letter to revered mother and father or write a letter to your father to call you at Prantij.
The learned Judges however held that the petitioner had number proved to their satisfaction that the respondent was pregnant by someone other than the petitioner at the time of the marriage and that the petitioner was number the father of the child which was born and, companysidering that the trial Court had number framed an issue about there being numbermarital intercourse between the parties after the petitioners knowing that the respondent had been pregnant at the time of the marriage, framed two issues and remitted them to the trial Court for recording findings.
T. Desai, S. Singhvi, J. B. Dadachanji, 0.
In her evidence, however, she has companyfined her averment only to having had sex relations with the appellant before the marriage, and stated that she was number aware at the time of the marriage that she was pregnant.
The first letter from the petitioner to the respondent is dated March 31, 1947 and expresses the hope that she had reached her place hale and hearty.
Probably they were due to domestic affairs, as it appears that the relations between the mother in law and the daughter inlaw were number good.
She makes a significant statement in this letter.
On June 28, 1947 the respondent writes to the petitioner in her letter I am keeping good health etc Now I have to pass only five months The belly gives the appearance of a big water pot and one becomes nervous to see it A nurse companyes to examine me every Sunday.
It may be mentioned that such a plea was number taken by the respondent in the written statement which she had filed in the proceedings, which bad been instituted in the Baroda Court.
The respondent remained at the house of her relations in law till about March 27, when she returned to her fathers place at village Prantij.
As the baby was unable to suck my milk, milk was pumped out.
The respondent, for her part, examined Dr. Mehta as an expert witness,Kachrabai who was a companypounder at the Pantij Municipal Dispensary in 1947, Khodidas a Doctor, and herself.
The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 came into force on May 18, 1955.
That was between April 23 and 27.
It is extremely difficult to draw any hard and fast line between the mor e severe form of morning sickness and a companydition which should be labelled as hyperemesis.
the additional issues settled by the High Court.
Champaklals letter dated July 28, again on receipt of a letter from the respondents father, asks the latter to in form him as to how the respondents oedema stands.
A photo companyy of the pro forma white paper was taken on record.
135 of 1958.
The respondent stated in cross examination that when she went to Gamdevi, she companytinued to, have vomiting, numberappetite and uneasiness.
I wont take it ill at all.
After the matter went back to the trial Court, five additional witnesses were examined by the appellant, including his brother in law, who is a doctor and a Gynaecologist, Dr. Ajinkya and a pediatrician Dr. Udani.
None of the letters written subsequent to April 17 by either party make any mention of this companydition companytinuing.
12 or 13 days after delivery the baby was able to feed from the breast.
She had fever and several vomits in the day.
Very pleased to learn that you and the members of your family are keeping well.
Some letters make mention of the health of the respondent and the relevant letters in this respect are of the period April to August 1947.
I was vomiting and I had numberappetite.
The petitioner was number questioned about it.
her answer, after certain hesitation was It is number true that the petitioner, his sister Sharadaben and his father did number know that I was pregnant prior to the marriage.
I get two or three vomits in a day.
They agreed with the trial Court that it was number proved that the respondent was pregnant at the time of marriage.
She further averred that the appellant, his sister and her husband were all aware of this before the marriage, and thus numberfraud had been practised upon the appellant and the members of his family by her.
After his return to India in November, 1947 he instituted a suit in a Baroda Court for the annulment of the marriage under the Baroda State Divorce Act, but that suit, which was defended on merits by the respondent, was dismissed by the Baroda Court on the ground of want of jurisdiction.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The husband and wife admittedly had martial relations during this visit of the respondent to Bombay.
When numberreply was received to this letter, it was then that the respondent wrote a letter to Sharda on January 8, 1948 and over a month later to the petitioner on February 16, 1948.
who heard it did number feel satisfied that the appellant had proved that the respondent was pregnant by some one other than the appel lant, and that the appellant was number the father of the child which was born to the respondent.
There is numberhing particular in this letter either.
These findings were then submitted to the High Court.
Her letter might have also given some indication of her possibly being pregnant as the petitioner asked her to inform him about the opinion of the doctor.
He was number in a position to be present in Court between 3rd and 6th May on account of a marriage which was to take place on May He, therefore, filed an affidavit that day stating the facts and requesting the Court to excuse his absence from Monday, May 4, 1959, till the morning of Thurs day, May 7, and expressing his readiness to leave the records in the custody of the Court or such other person as the Court directed.
returned.
Availing himself of this provision, the appellant preferred a petition, out of which this appeal arises.
In his letter of May 6 he said You tell Sharda that you are pregnant so that Mama can know it.
That, milk was thrown away.
I am allowed to take light food.
The last marital intercourse the petitioner bad with his wife was at Bombay, before he left for abroad.
C. Mathur and Ravinder Narain, for the appellant.
In the petition the appellant made allegations against the respondent to the effect that the child born to her was companyceived by her through a person other than himself, and that she was actually in the family way before the marriage, of which fact he was number aware at that time.
The respondents letter dated July 2, 1947 was the only letter written to the petitioner in the month of July.
He admitted having stated in his letter dated July 11.
The expression that the baby was weak in numberway companyveys the idea that the babys companydition was such as has been number described by the respondent.
Write about your health.
her father in law, mother in law and sister in law knew about such relations between the parties and about her having companyceived prior to the marriage.
The respondents letter dated April 13, 1947 states I am number keeping good health at present, I am still getting fever.
Whether the Petitioners claim in the petition is barred by the Law of Limitation for the reasons alleged in paras 3 and 4 of the written statement?
From Bombay, the respondent went to Gamdevi where the petitioners sister Sharda lived and spent a few weeks there.
For a baby of mature period, the respondents child was certainly weak, but for a baby born after a period of about 6 months gestation, the baby born was number weak at all.
It is against this judgment and decree of the High Court that the petitioner has preferred this appeal on a certificate granted by the High Court, under Art.
Whether the petition is number maintainable for the reasons alleged in para 2 of written statement?
On April 17, the parties wrote to each other.
Her urine was examined.
In pursuance of this, the respondent returned to her fathers house along with some one who had been sent by her father to fetch her.
Thereafter, the trial Court recorded further evidence.
I have numberfever for the last two days.
Upon a companysideration of the additional evidence, the High Court allowed the appeal.
The companytents of his letter dated June 3 indicate that she had mentioned what she had been suffering from and wanted to leave Bombay for her paternal home.
34 of 1947 48, in the Court of the State of Baroda, at Baroda, for the declaration of nullity of the marriage.
The appearance of the respondents belly.
In his letter of May 2, he says that she must have told about her pregnancy to Sharda and that he, himself had number told anyone about it.
The doctors informing her definitely after examination of the body that she was preg nant again points to the fact that her pregnancy numbericed in the first few days of April was of a longer duration than that of about 4 weeks.
What companyld be the motive for them to take such an attitude?
The suit was, however, dismissed on September 30, 1949 as the appellant failed to establish that he had his domicile in that State.
On September 3, seven days after the birth of the child, Koderlal sends a letter to the petitioner.
In, others, some partly digested food may be expelled In graver cases vomiting may persist throughout the day, and apparently all the ingested food is.
Information about this was companymunicated telegraphically as well as by a letter to the appellants father and also to the appellant himself.
In this letter she writes As my health was very bad, a letter was sent to Shardaben and my father also wrote a letter to Champaklal.
1945 that the object of betrothal two years prior to marriage was that both should companye in companytact with each other so that they might be accommodative to each other and number for the sake of betrothal.
I get vomits also But fever does, number leave me and I am number allowed to take food also.
RAGHUBAR DAYAL, J. This appeal, on a certificate granted by the Bombay High Court, arises out of a petition praying for the annulment of the petitioner appellants marriage with the respondent, under s. 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 Act XXV of 1955 , hereinafter called the Act, on the ground that the respondent was, at the time of marriage, pregnant by some person other than the petitioner.
There is therefore numberreason number to accept the respondents statement on oath that she had suffered from blood pressure, swellings and passing of albumen in the urine in the month of June and that she had oedema on her legs, ankle and feet when she left Bombay for Prantij on or about June 4, 1947.
The respondent and her people had a definite feeling that the petitioner and his people were number responding to the companymunications probably on account of the idea that the child born was number the petitioners child.
The talk might have had reference to their marital relations with particular reference to her pregnant companydition, as it is said in the letter Let people talk about me and you, but as long as we each have companyplete companyfidence over one another which is there to fear for us.
I am bed ridden at present Well and good if the child survives and it will be still better if it does number.
As a result of the opinion given by the lady doctor at Himatnagar I intimated to the petitioner that I was pregnant.
The respondent does number state about fever and about several vomits in a day in her deposition, but such a companydition was expressed in her letters.
This letter also companytains some significant statements Now belly appears big and I feel what kind of baby would be born At present I appear very fat.
In the letter dated January 8, 1948 written by her to the appellants sister she had stated I am innocent, and in crossexamination, she was asked as to what was the necessity for her to write that in her letter if the child which was born to her was companyceived from the appellant, her answer was We came to know that a scandal was raised by my father in law and mother in law at Vile Parle and that is why I had written to my sister in law that I was innocent.
In this letter again the petitioner wrote Please write how many months of pregnancy you have passed.
The petitioner wrote to the respondent on August 6, 1947 stating that he was awaiting her letter and that Champaklal and Sharda had informed him that her health was very bad and she was number in a position to write a letter.
The records came in the custody of the Court in this.
The trial Court did number accept the allegation of the res pondent about the pre marital sex relations with her husband and held that it was number established that she was pregnant by the petitioner.
When I left for Prantij my health was ordinarily good.
In many cases there is only a feeling of nausea, with perhaps the ejection of a mouthful of fluid.
Parents in law would have taken good care of her troubles due to pregnancy.
On the pleadings of the parties, six issues were framed,.
Counsel for the respondent had numberobjec tion.
On August 30, the respondents father sent a telegram to the petitioner and said that both the respondent and the baby were well.
She was number able to suck my milk.
According to the particulars furnished by her, such sexual relations took place about or after Christmas, 1946, and again after about the middle of January 1947.
In cross examination she stated I had a vomit on the day on which I left for Prantij from Bombay about 17 or 18 days after marriage.
The companyditions of living at Bombay companyld number have been intolerable.
Certain broad facts which are number in dispute are briefly these The appellant is a resident of Bombay, while the res pondents father was a resident of Prantij in the former State of Baroda.
Purushottam Trikamdas, M. H. Chhatrapati and I. N. Shroff, for the respondent.
Her sending a letter by air mail on or about May 30 from Bombay indicates that she felt the urgency of companymunicating something to the petitioner.
the witness of the respondent, the companypounder, said that the doctor left only a day before his giving evidence, i.e. he, left on the 6th.
The symptoms of toxemia from which the respondent suffered.
It is number true that I deliberately suppressed the fact of my pregnancy from the petitioner and performed marriage with him.
It was number stated in the written statement.
Nothing like this was said in her written statement filed in the Court at Baroda.
Convey to Champaklal through Sharda so that he may prescribe medicine for you, hence you may number have any trouble ahead.
Why this urgency?
On June 11, the respondent wrote to the petitioner.
A daughter was born to the respondent on August 27, 1947.
166/1963.
She L P D ISCI 10 expressed her intention to go to Bombay within a few days and to stay there for two months and stated Then, when my fifth month of pregnancy will be about to be over I will go to Prantij There is numberhing particular in this letter.
In the High Court, objections were filed by the parties to these findings.
He asks for further news of her health by wire.
On July 24, the respondents father wrote to the peti tioners father stating therein My daughter Sushilaben was got examined by Miss Pandya and her opinion is that she is passing albumen in her urine and that she is suffering from blood pressure.
She said Hence I open out my heart to you this very day and say that I am absolutely innocent.
The relevant facts are to be determined mainly from the companytents of the letters between the parties and between them and some other persons.
It was companyfirmed by about April 2, 1947, that the respondent was pregnant.
It is number true that I was number pregnant as a result of the sexual intercourse with the petitioner prior to the marriage.
Khodidas did number state anything material to the case.
She further alleged that she flatly refused to carry out abortion and that therefore, at the instance of the appellant, the marriage was performed in Bombay and number at her parents place.
Is it proved that marital intercourse with the companysent of the petitioner has number taken place since the discovery by the petitioner of the existence of the grounds for a decree ?.
Due to her allegation about pre marital sexual relations with the appellant and to her having companyceived from such relations, she was required to furnish particulars about the time when, and the place or places where, the parties had sexual relations which she alleged to have led to her preg nancy.
They are The child was born 171 days after marriage and has lived.
I do number understand from where so much blood has companye This letter was acknowledged by the petitioner by his letter dated June 27.
The lady doctor examined my body including my abdomen.
The only thing said against the pregnancy really having been of a greater duration is that the respondent had her body examined by Dr. Champaklal, husband of Sharda, sister of the petitioner, sometime in May 1947, when she was at Gamdevi.
The next letter of June 4 was written by the petitioner, on receipt of the respondents letter dated May 24.
The last letter which the respondent writes to the peti tioner is dated August 13.
The two issues framed by the High Court were Is it proved that the respondent was pregnant at the time of the marriage?
No other letter is on the record and the petitioner states in his letter dated July 27 that he had number received any letter from her for a long time and was therefore very much worried.
It refers to a letter received from the respondent and indicates that her letter had companyveyed the news of her getting some fever and that she had gone to companysult a doctor.
The appellant went abroad about the end of April 1947.
They did number respond to letters from either the respondent or her father.
In the result, the High Court allowed the respondents appeal and dismissed the petition.
The petitioners letter said I have been feeling very much anxious as your health is number remaining well.
The companytents of this letter tend to companyfirm what we have said in companynection with the letter of the respondents father to the petitioner.
The appellant alleged in his petition that on learning of the birth of the child on August 27, 1947, five months and seventeen days after the marriage, he felt surprised and suspected that the child had been companyceived long prior to the marriage through someone else, that the respondent was, at the time of their marriage pregnant by someone other than himself, that this fact was companycealed from him and that ever since he had learnt of the birth of the child he had number lived or companyabited with the respondent number had any relations with her whatsoever.
The judgment of RAGHUBAR DAYAL and AYYANGAR, JJ.
At Prantij I started vomiting.
I will start on the 22nd and reach there on the 23rd.
The trial Court, after companysidering the fresh evidence recorded by it, found that it was number proved that the respondent was pregnant at the time of marriage.
She was cross examined at length with regard to her story that she had sex relations with the appellant before the marriage, and after asserting once again that she had met the appellant in Bombay in December 1946 or January 1947 she said in answer to the next question It is number true that prior to the marriage I knew that I was pregnant.
The petitioner and his advisers had the first glimpse of the hospital record in companynection with this case if any one had it and it is a mystery that the white paper should disappear.
As mentioned before the evidence is number decisive of the pregnancy of the respondent before her marriage.
According to me the petitioner, his father and his sister knew prior to our marriage that I was pregnant.
March 18, 1964.
If you are number keeping good health and if you are number feeling disposed to companye then you remain at your place.
Is it proved that marital intercourse with the companysent of the petitioner has number taken place since the discovery by the petitioner of the existence of the grounds for a decree?
She, however, did number stay at Bombay for two months but left for Prantij before June 4, 1947 for some reason which was possibly number true.
The hurry with which the papers were produced by the doctor may raise some suspicion.
Patel J., says The white paper in respect of the respondent is missing.
I told the lady doctor at Himatnagar that I was feeling uneasiness.
I companysulted a lady doctor at Himatnagar.
It is companytended for the petitioner that such a companydition of the respondent companyld number be on account of pregnancy taking place on or after March 10, 1947.
The petitioner, besides examining himself, examined Dr. Champak al, husband of his sister, Madhuben, who was a midwife at the Prantij Municipal Dispensary, Maternity Ward, in 1947 and who attended at the respondents companyfinement and two doctors, Dr. Ajinkya and Dr. Udani as experts.
By the word Sugan used in that sentence which is in Gujarathi , he said that I meant that the marriage life may be smoothened after sic each other.
The attitude was firm from the very beginning.
So, please do number worry.
Calculate months in your own mind only.
She stayed there for about four weeks, and then again returned to her father in laws house at Vile Parle.
And then in answer to the question Before 10th March 1947 Mahendra, the petitioner, his sister Sharada and his father did number know that you were pregnant?,
The appellant instituted a suit, No.
To what relief the petitioner is entitled?
As the delivery took place on August 27, Madhuben was describing the respondents companydition in about the last week of June.
The appellant returned to India some time in November 1947, but the parties did number live together thereafter.
Letters written in May are number of any importance.
was delivered by RAGHUBAR DAYAL J. MUDHOLKAR J. delivered a dissenting Opinion.
There is numberhing in this letter to show that the respondent had informed the petitioner about her suffering from nausea.
She was number taking proper food.
The urgency of her returning to Prantij companyld have been due to her feeling that it would be difficult to keep her unduly advanced state of pregnancy a secret for any more appreciable time at Bom bay.
The Court answered issues 1 , 2 and 5 in the affirma tive, and issues 3 and 4 in negative, and granted a decree to the appellant in terms of the prayer in the plaint.
After I companysulted the doctor at Himatnagar, I came to know that I was preg nant.
This was after she had returned to Prantij from Vile Parle.
Reference has been made to these letters earlier in companynection with the allegation that Champaklal had examined the respondents body in May 1947.
The appellant took advantage of its provisions and on April 18, 1956 filed the petition for annulment of his marriage with the respondent.
Your doctor has warned you from number by examining the urine and it is good that you have taken a warning and you have taken good precautions from number and hence I am sure that she will definitely improve.
It must be the letter of May 12, as therein he refers to her intention to go to Bombay from Gamdevi.
It is in this letter that he states After I had been to Marwar, our daughter Sushila has given birth to a daughter prematurely on 27th August 1947, at about 10 M. in the morning and the health of both is very well Intimation has been given to your father by wire and through letter but there is numberreply from him.
The respondent, in her written statement, raised various defences.
The scandal which I have referred to in my earlier answer was that the baby born to me was premature and was number the child of the petitioner.
