An appeal against a divorce decree was dismissed. The court held the marriage was a sham due to the husband's dominance over the young, vulnerable student-witness, confirming the trial court's finding of non-consummation and coercion.
The appeal was dismissed and the divorce decree was confirmed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Dl. May 4, F.A. 36 of 2017 28. 2022
Sourav Sen Vs, Smt. Juhi Dutta Mr. Soumik Ganguly, Mr. Sayan Roy, …for the appellant.
Re: CAN 5 of 2022 (expeditious hearing) filed on April 8, 2022.
Although the matter is appearing under the heading
“application”, we take up the appeal itself is taken up for consideration upon dispensation of all formalities.
The present appeal has arisen out of a decree for divorce in Matrimonial Suit No. 155 of 2012. The decree was passed on the ground that there has been no consummation of marriage between the parties and that the registration of marriage was made under threat and coercion.
Mr. Soumik Ganguly, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant/husband, submits that at the time of registration of marriage, the respondent/wife was present before the Registrar of Marriage and she has put her signature on the required documents, which clearly shows that there was no coercion or threat as alleged by the respondent/wife.
In spite of notice, the respondent/wife is not represented.
We have gone through the judgment impugned in this appeal in detail and have heard Mr. Ganguly, learned advocate for the appellant.
It appears that there was a love relationship between the
2
appellant/husband and the respondent/wife prior to their marriage. The petitioner/wife came into the contact of the appellant/husband at her tender age of 16 years having fanciful ideas about love. The appellant/husband was the teacher of the petitioner/wife. The petitioner/wife, after completion of her Madhyamik examination sometime in March 2009, took admission in a computer centre, namely, Bankura Sahar Youth Computer Training Centre at I.T. Bazar, Kuchkuchia, Bankura, where the appellant/husband was a teacher. The appellant also used to reside in the same neighbourhood where the petitioner/wife resides. During that time while attending computer classes, intimate relationship developed between the parties and the petitioner/wife alleged that taking advantage of her vulnerability, the appellant/husband had taken few photographs. Such relationship between the parties continued for almost two years and when the petitioner/wife was at the threshold of 18 years, the appellant/husband insisted the petitioner to marry him and, according to the petitioner, she was forced to sign two documents without really knowing about legality of such documents.
The evidence on record shows that the appellant met the petitioner/wife outside her college on June 15, 2012 and requested her to accompany him before the Marriage Registry Office and when she declined to accompany, the appellant/husband threatened the petitioner that the inappropriate photographs taken during the intimate relationship would be published. The circumstances under which she was compelled to attend the Marriage Registry Office and put her signature on the required
3
documents has been elaborately stated by the petitioner/wife during her evidence and more particularly during her cross-examination as would appear from her deposition recorded on May 21, 2014. The compulsion under which she was forced to attend the Marriage Registry Office and put her signature has been clearly stated by her remained unshaken during her cross-examination. It has to be remembered that there was a difference of age of 10 years between the petitioner/wife and the husband/appellant and it was well established that the appellant/husband was in a dominant position. The evidence would show that the appellant/husband continued to dominate the petitioner/wife because of their close proximity and also being the teacher of the petitioner/wife of her computer classes. Interestingly none of the witnesses, who put their signature before the Marriage Registrar, have any relationship with the petitioner/wife. They are neither the friends nor the acquaintance of the petitioner/wife. They are complete stranger to the petitioner/wife. It would be evident from the evidence on record that there was no consummation of marriage at all. In the same conspectus of facts where the respondent/wife was only nineteen years of age and the appellant/husband being computer music teacher of the respondent/wife and was much older than her, Supreme Court of India held in Jolly Das vs. Tapan Ranjan Das reported in (1994) 4 S.C.C. 363 that such a marriage is “sham marriage”, “a marriage only in name”. Inexperience, tender age and vulnerable emotions were victim of a mature and seasoned mind, standing in the position of a tutor, thereby subjecting the victim/respondent to the fear of exposure and shame which such a
4
tender mind can hardly resist. We have no hesitation to hold that the marriage in the instant case is a nominal one, a paper marriage without having the true spirit and purport of a true marriage, a sham marriage
On such consideration, we do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment and decree passed by the trial court and the same is, accordingly, confirmed.
The appeal thus, stands dismissed.
In view of dismissal of the appeal the application being
CAN 5 of 2022 is disposed of.
There will be no order as to costs.
dns
( Sugato Majumdar, J. ) ( Soumen Sen, J. )
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the marriage was a sham entreated by the teacher over the student alleging coercion.
Whether the divorce decree based on non-consummation and coercion requires interference.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Jolly Das vs. Tapan Ranjan DasRelied on¶15
(1994) 4 S.C.C. 363 · Who else cites this
Sourav Sen
Smt. Juhi Dutta
Sugato Majumdar
Soumen Sen
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
Sugato Majumdar and Soumen Sen
Parties & counsel
