She was therefore brought in an advanced stage of pregnancy to Delhi and through the intervention of her uncle Basant Kumar, the marriage was solemnised on January 24, 1976 according to Arya Samaj rites at the Arya Samaj Mandir, Hanuman Road, New Delhi.
It is further proved that the respondent married the petitioner at Delhi on 24.1.1976 of his own sweet free will according to Hindu rites.
On February 17, 1976 she sent a reply denying the allegations made therein.
On February 6, 1976, he served a numberice on the appellant alleging that the marriage was a nullity as she got pregnant through someone else, that fraud was practised on him by her uncle Basant Kumar and that he had been companyrced to marry her against his will.
Her case is that she wanted to marry the respondent, but her father was opposed to the alliance as her elder brother and sister were unmarried.
On March 23, 1976 i.e. just after five days of the filing of the petition under s. 12 of the Act the appellant delivered a dead child at Delhi.
It may here be stated that although the appellant is a resident of Delhi as she lives with her uncle Basant Kumar at Lajwanti Garden, and the respondent was also a resident of Delhi being employed, at all material times, as Radio Technician in the Ministry of Home Affairs, Rail Bhavan, New Delhi, he started the present proceedings number at Delhi but at Almora.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated the 6th August, 1979 of the Allahabad High Court in Civil Revision No.
By his order dated April 8, 1978 he negatived the objection raised by the appellant holding that since the parties were originally resident of village Bagyan, District Pithoragarh, that is, a place within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court of the District Judge, Almora, he I was companypetent to entertain and try the suit.
The appellant by her written statement filed on August 23, 1976 challenged the jurisdiction of the District Judge, Almora to try the suit.
In decreeing her claim for restitution of companyjugal rights, the learned Subordinate Judge observed That to sum up, the evidence adduced by petitioner proves that the petitioner and respondent were known to 1006 each other and had developed sexual intimacy.
On March 2, 1976 she filed a petition for restitution of companyjugal rights under s. 9 of the Act in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Class I, Delhi.
The learned District Judge, accordingly framed a preliminary issue as to jurisdiction.
The appellant being aggrieved by the order of the learned District Judge preferred an appeal before the High Court.
The respondent thus knew at the time of marriage that the petitioner was pregnant.
On March 18, 1976 the respondent filed a petition for nullity of marriage under s. 12 of the Act in the Court of the District Judge, Almora alleging that the parties were residents of village Bagyan, District Pithoragarh, i.e. within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court of District Judge, Almora.
The appellants A case is that they fell in love and she became enceinte, as the respondent had access to her during the period of companyrtship.
APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
K K Mahrotra for the Respondent.
K Garg for the Appellant.
A Even if she happened to be in Delhi on the date when the petition was presented, she must have gone to Delhi only on a temporary visit as she had numberplace of residence at Delhi and the respondent companyld number be said to have been residing at Delhi when the petition was presented in the District Court.
CIVIL.
2754 of 1981.
1904 of 1978.
Such advanced stage of pregnancy companyld number be hidden from the vision of any person.
Three days after the marriage, i.e. On January 27, 1976, the respondent left the residence of Basant Kumar on the pretext that he had to fetch his belongings from the residence of his uncle Dharm Nand Pant who also lives at Delhi, and never returned.
The plea of respondent that he did number know on 24.1.1976 that the petitioner was pregnant cannot be believed.
The petitioner delivered a dead child on 23.3.1976 would show that on the date of marriage, the petitioner was running in 7th month of pregnancy.
