PETITION - S.C. - WRIT.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA\


ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. _______ OF 2008

IN THE MATTER OF

Arup Kumar Gupta @ Anwar ....Petitioner

S/o Late S.K.Gupta, Address:- Wireless Operator, N.T.P.C.,

K.S.T.P.S., Deptt. I.T, P.O. Jamnipali, Tahsil Katghora, Distt. Korba, (C.G.)

VERSUS

Smt Rama Dasgupta .....Respondent

D/o Late P.K.Dasgupta, Address:- B-609, Block-I, Yamuna Vihar,

P.O. Jamnipali, Tahsil - Katghora, Distt. Korba, (C.G)





LIST OF ANNEXURES

DATE. SUBJECTS.

A-1 1.12.

1987 A translated true copy of the said marriage proposal letter dated 1.12.1987 is annexed hereto and marked as ANNEXURE A-1.

A-2

------ A copy of the official record of respondent showing her date of birth is annexed hereto and marked as ANNEXURE A-2.

A-3 5.12.

1994 Petitioner felt that it is impossible to live with respondent due to her treatment with cruelty. Copy of the said application dated 5.12.1994 is annexed hereto and marked as ANNEXURE A-3.

A-4 30.01.

1995 The respondent burnt herself by fire. Petitioner reported the matter to the P.S Darri, Copy of the police investigation report is annexed hereto and marked as ANNEXURE A-4.

A-5 26.6.

1995 A copy of the defamatory written statement filed by respondent in earlier suit No.19-A of 1993 dated 26.6.1995 is annexed hereto and marked as ANNEXURE A-5.

A-6 05.02.

1999 A copy of the letter dated 5.2.1999 sent by respondent’s brother, is annexed hereto and marked as ANNEXURE A-6.

A-7 20.09.

1999 A copy of the letter dated 20.9.1999 sent by respondent, is annexed hereto and marked as ANNEXURE A-7.

A-8 24.01.

2000 Copy of the trial court petition, dated 24.01.2000, annexed as ANNEXURE A-8.

A-9 14.09.

2004

&

09.11.

2004 Deposition of petitioner side taken on 14.09.2004. Deposition of non–applicant side taken on 09.11.2004.

The copies of evidences are annexed hereto & marked as ANNEXURE A-9 (Colly).

A-10 09.11.

2004 Against the oral petition to call sister in law for witness, the order passed by the District Judge Korba dated 09.11.2004 are annexed hereto and marked as ANNEXURES A-10.

A-11 17.11.

2004 The written submission for calling the sister in law of respondent as witness by petitioner dated 17.11.2004 before the District Judge Korba, annexed hereto and marked as ANNEXURES A-11.

A-12 3.12.

2004 A copy of the trial court judgment order dated 3.12.2004 passed by District Judge Korba, Chhattisgarh is annexed hereto and marked as ANNEXURE A-12.

A-13 10.01.

2005 Copy of the first appeal under section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act dated 10.01.2005 is annexed hereto and marked as ANNEXURE A-13.



List of events date wise

DATE SUBJECT



1.12.

1987 Against a matrimonial advertisement by petitioner for his own, respondent, her brother Mr. Anupom Das Gupta, his wife (i.e. sister in law of respondent) sent a proposal of marriage on behalf of respondent, for one imaginary person - who’s age was 32 years as on 1.12.1987. The copy of the letter dated 1.12.1987 annexed as Annexure A-1

08.05.

1988 Vide Annexure A-1, respondent sent the proposal, very specifically for one imaginary person - who’s age was 32 years as on 1.12.1987, and not for respondent. But at the time of solemnization of marriage, which held on 8.5.88, another woman i.e. the respondent took part as bride, personating herself as the said imaginary person. Thus marriage solemnized, by cheating by personation.

1988

to

1995 The fraud was discovered and the petitioner came to know the actual age of the respondent, while respondent came with her office records for the purpose of joining the Government School, Jamnipali, where she presently posted.

Although the petitioner and respondent lived in a common roof in the accommodation of the petitioner but their relationship was not cordial and normal matrimonial relationship of husband and wife not existed due to the said cheating by personation.

A copy of the official record of respondent showing her date of birth is annexed hereto and marked as ANNEXURE A-2.

Oct

1993 The mother of the petitioner visited the house of the petitioner when the respondent told her mother-in-law that due to the petitioner, she is issueless. The petitioner is ‘Napunsak’ (impotent).

09.11.

1993 The petitioner filed a suit for divorce under Section 13(1)(ii) of H.M.Act,1955 in the Court of Additional District Judge, Bilaspur being Suit No.19-A of 1993 on the ground, change of religion of petitioner.

Jan.

1994 The respondent taken away all Indira Vikas Patras and other valuable securities and gold ornaments of the petitioner - which was hard earned income of the petitioner. He prayed for its return by application dated 30.6.94 and 5.12.94 before the Court of Additional District Judge, Bilaspur.

28.11.

1994 Petitioner’s brother-in-law, Mr. Anupom Kumar Dasgupta, threatened the petitioner on 28.11.94. It is reported to P.S. Darri, Korba

5.12.

1994 Petitioner felt that it is impossible to live with respondent due to her treatment with cruelty. Respondent threatened the petitioner of severe consequences until and unless he withdraws the divorce petition. Respondent harassed, tortured and tried to blackmail the petitioner.She also took the help of communal elements. Therefore, petitioner prayed before the court that - the respondent be directed to live separately in the interest of justice, vide his application dated 5.12.1994.

ANNEXURE A-3.





24.1.

1995 The respondent burnt herself by fire. Petitioner reported the matter to the P.S Darri, Distt Korba Vide letter dated 24.1.95 for enquiry.

In his application dated 5.12.94 petitioner expressed his anxiety that the petitioner may put into trouble due to the reckless act of the respondent who turned hostile and may commit any offence at anytime.

Petitioner felt it - as a conspiracy against him, and strong insecurity - to live with respondent under the same roof.

The petitioner compelled to leave his residence in a single wear i.e. in one pant and one shirt, which he wearied at that time. Some time later, petitioner went to his residence to collect some clothes and other essential household items. But the respondent did not allow it. As a result of that, petitioner compelled to leave the residence permanently. Since then, petitioner staying out - from his own residence i.e. the quarter (bearing No. B-609, Block-1, Yamuna Vihar, Jamnipali, Distt Korba) situated in the township of N.T.P.C/ K.S.T.P.S., which is allotted to the petitioner by his employer, as per the service terms, and for which- petitioner paying rent toll today. After ejecting from his own residence, petitioner requested several times to his employer - in writing to get the residence vacated from the unauthorized occupation of respondent. But no reply yet been received. Petitioner request respondent to vacate the residence but she did not listen.



30.1.

1995 Petitioner reported the matter to the P.S Darri, Distt Korba that respondent burnt herself and tried to blackmail the petitioner. The investigation report of the police official; dated 30.1.95, annexed as ANNEXURE A-4.

It is also come out from the same report, that, the respondent unwilling to give any household items - even the clothes of the petitioner, to him.

January

1995 After arising all these serious consequences, the petitioner herein forced by the respondent to vacate the quarter. Since then, respondent is in forceful possession of the quarter till today though the said official accommodation is legally belong to the petitioner.

6.11.

1995 Written statement dated 6.11.1995, filed in the Case No. 19-A/93. A copy of the written statement. ANNEXURE A-5.

Remarkable points stated in her ws, is as under

(A) Point no 6: Quote reflects the behavior of the petitioner to respondent was inhumane and cruel at all times, for which, no issue was born by petitioner to respondent. Unquote

(B) Point no 8: Quote After marriage, petitioner’s behavior with respondent was cruel and inhumane. Unquote

(C) Point no 13: Quote By a continuous cruel behavior upon respondent, petitioner demanded her shtridhan; self earned income, and landed property and petitioner continuously threatened and tortured respondent financially mentally & physically. Unquote

(D) Point no 14: Quote Petitioner took an ugly attempt and tried to destroy the social and family image of respondent. Unquote.

27.8.

1996 The Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh rejected Suit No.19-A of 1993 on it’s ground, change of religion of petitioner, vide the Civil Revision no. 1924 of 1995. The date of Judgment order is 27.8.96.

05.02.

1999 The petitioner’s employer Mr A.K. Pashine, Senior Manager (EDP) ask clarification serving an explanation call against petitioner vide letter ref. KS EDP:99/487, dated 12.10.1999 along with another two letters as enclosures, written by, respondent’s brother Mr. A.K. Dasgupta, dated 5.2.99 & respondent dated 20.9.99.

On behalf of respondent, the brother of respondent lodged some false complaints to the petitioner’s employer addressing to the G.M., K.S.T.P.S./N.T.P.C. Distt Korba & Minsters of the State Govt, these are :-

(A) Quote The petitioner not only continuously cheating/torture but also demand money for the sake of conversion to Islam. Unquote

(B) Quote Though Shri Arup Kumar Gupta is married still then he married Smt.Sunita Halder, wife of S.K.Roy. Unquote

(C) Quote Smt. Halder is Government Employee and wife of another person.Unquote

Brother of respondent demanded the following:-

(D) Quote This activity of Shri Arup Kumar Gupta [e.no.- 25268] is illegal, illegal & criminal; therefore I demand an appropriate penal action, him from you. Unquote

(E)Quote Please let me know the appropriate action taken by you against Shri Arup Kumar Gupta. Unquote

(F).Quote Please keep it mind, that, if you do not take appropriate penal action against such character less employee Arup Kumar and due to your negligence, if my younger sister compiled to take any serious steps or take steps to commit suicide, or if she would be the victim of any physical assaults, by the gonads of Arup Kumar, then the total responsibilities will be yours Unquote

A copy of the letter dated 5.2.1999 sent by respondent’s brother is annexed hereto and marked as ANNEXURE A-6.

20.9.

1999 Respondent wrote a letter dated 20.9.99 complaining a series of false complaints address to:-

(i) Smt Bose, President, Maitri Mahila Smaiti, N.T.P.C Jamnipali. Maitri Mahila Samiti is a ladies club of N.T.P.C. employees and receive financial aid from the fund of M/S Korba Super Thermal Power Station, and copy to

(ii) General Manager

(iii)Head of personnel deptt; of M/s Korba Super Thermal Power Station- The employer of the petitioner and copy to:-

Chairman-cum-Managing Director

Director (personnel)



A copy of the letter dated 20.9.1999 sent by respondent is annexed hereto and marked as ANNEXURE A-7.

24.1.

2000 The petitioner moved a petition being Suit No.13-A of 2000 under Section 12(1) (C), 13(1)(ia) & (ib) of the H.M. Act before the Vth Additional District Judge, Bilaspur, on the ground of fraud/misrepresentation of age, cruelty & desertion.

The said case was registered as 37-A of 2004. Copy of the trial court petition, dated 24.01.2000, annexed as ANNEXURE A-8.

02.08.

2004 Petitioner paid the process for call respondent, & respondent’s sister in law as witness with due permission of the competent authority.

14.09.

2004 Deposition of petitioner Witness, Smt K. Gupta, Shri M. Gupta, Shri S. Vedhraman, S. Haldar & A. K. Gupta (petitioner) taken.

ANNEXURE A-9 (Colly).

Oct to

Nov 2004. Civil suit no 13A/2000 transferred from Dist. Court Bilaspur to Dist. Court Korba. New no. is 37-A/2004.

09.11.

2004 i) Deposition of respondent’s witness, respondent herself & Shri D. D. Agrawal taken. ANNEXURE A-9 (Colly).

ii) On her witness, respondent refuses to recognize any involvement of anx.A-1, on her marriage. According to her, She do not know, who wrote anx A-1, which bears the false statement on her age. Even she refused to recognize/ confirm the handwriting of the said letter anx A-1. In fact, this will criminate respondent in a punishable offence under IPC, - from which she tried to get escaped.

iii) The said letter annexure A-1 wrote by the sister in law (wife of respondent’s brother). It is a hand written inland letter. She was called as witness on 2.8.2004, with due permission of the competent authority but she did not appear on due date.

iv) Against the oral petition of this petitioner to call sister in law for witness, the order passed by the District Judge Korba dated 09.11.2004 are annexed hereto and marked as ANNEXURE A-10.

17.11.

2004. Petitioner submitted a written petition for calling the said sister in law as witness and additional Witness of petitioner to reply the new matter and allegations raised at the time of witness by respondent. The written submission for calling the sister in law of respondent as witness by petitioner dated 17.11.2004 before the District Judge Korba, annexed hereto and marked as

ANNEXURES A-11.

03.12.

2004 The Learned District Judge vide order dated 3.12.04 rejected the claim of the petitioner. A copy of the order dated 3.12.2004 passed by District Judge Korba, Chhattisgarh is annexed hereto and marked as

ANNEXURE A-12.

10.01.

2005 The Petitioner filed first appeal in the Hon’ble High Court at Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) under Section 28 of the H.M.Act. The said appeal was numbered as F.A.No.24 of 2005 & annexed as ANNEXURE A-13.

22.04.

2008 The F.A.No.24 of 2005 was dismissed by the High Court holding the appeal being devoid of substance.

The petitioner was not informed about the date of judgment and the same was passed behind the back of the petitioner, but it is shown in the Judgment that appealant was present at the court on, 22.04.08.

The said order is impugned order against whom this writ petition lies.

03.10.

2004 Being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, of High Court the petitioner filling this writ petition before this Hon’ble Apex Court.





PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 21 READ WITH ARTS 14, 13, 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAUMS/ PROHINITIOIN / QUO WARRANTO / CERTIORARI UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.



TO

Hon’ble The Chief Justice of India and His Lordship’s Companion Justice of the Supreme Court of India. The Humble petition of the Petitioner abovenamed.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:-

The petitioner is an Indian citizen. Petitioner filing this Writ Petition for the enforcement of his fundamental rights under Act 21, read with Arts. 13(1), 14, and 32 of The Constitution of India.



1. Facts of the case:-

i) Against a matrimonial advertisement by petitioner for his own, respondent, her brother Late Anupom Das Gupta, his wife (i.e. sister in law of respondent) (the above three, hereinafter, jointly to be called as the, “respondent and her party”) sent a proposal of marriage on behalf of respondent, for one imaginary person - who’s age was 32 years as on 1.12.1987, who hereinafter to be called as “the proposed bride”. The letter dated 1.12.1987 annexed as Annexure A-1

The proposed bride is an imaginary person - who is designed and created by the ‘respondent and her party’. They kept the same and identical status of the proposed bride and the respondent - except the material factor ‘age’. According to Annexure A-1, the age of the ‘proposed bride’ is 32 years; whereas the age of respondent was about to 37 years, as on 1.12.1987.

ii) Vide Annexure A-1, respondent sent the proposal, very specifically for ‘the proposed bride’ and not for respondent. But at the time of solemnization of marriage, which held on 8.5.88, another woman i.e. the respondent took part as bride, personating herself as ‘the proposed bride’. As the age of ‘the proposed bride’ & respondent are different, therefore they are not the same person, they are absolutely two different persons.

According to the office record of respondent the date of birth is 20.12.1950. The office record regarding the age of respondent annexed as Annexure A-2.

iii) Respondent & her party did this criminal conspiracy against the petitioner, to obtain an unlawful object and did a legal act by illegal means. They integrated their efforts, all together and completed their criminal object (i.e. solemnization of marriage) successfully against the legal and constitutional rights of petitioner and deprived him from the application of his legal rights, regarding marriage, which originated / illuminated from, The Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

iv) Respondent cheated petitioner by pretending to be ‘the proposed bride’. She knowingly substituted and represented herself as ‘the proposed bride’ what she really not, and took part as bride in the solemnization of marriage suppressing the material factor ‘age’ and thus cheated the petitioner by personating herself as ‘the proposed bride’. Respondent represented herself as the ‘proposed bride’ and other than, what she really is, before the petitioner, - as a part of their criminal conspiracy and cheat petitioner by personating.

v) Respondent & her party knew that, among the Bengali Baidya Community, in which both petitioner and respondent belong, that, their, normally a male do not marry a female older than him. Therefore, if respondent write the real ‘age’ of her then petitioner will reject the proposal of marriage. Therefore respondent do this criminal conspiracy and cheated with intention, to allow the solemnization of marriage by any means & thereafter it will be easier to create pressure over petitioner and compel him to carryout this unholy wedlock by hook or crock.



vi) The petitioner & respondent did not know one other, on or before 1.12.1987, and petitioner was absolutely an innocent person before them. It was taken into granted that the respondent and her party furnished true information, where ‘marriage’ is concerned. They are legally bound to keep the interest of the petitioner.



vii) This criminal conspiracy alongwith cheating by personation by the respondent, creates confusion on three different heads. These are:-

a) In one side petitioner and respondent solemnized the marriage.

b) In other side, petitioner accepted the offer of marriage for ‘the proposed bride’ only and not respondent due to the material factor ‘age’.

c) In another side, proposal of marriage for respondent with petitioner, neither offered to, nor accepted by petitioner before solemnization.

Respondent was able to create this confusion and by keeping, same and identical status of ‘the proposed bride’ & ‘respondent’ except the material factor ‘age’.

viii) ‘Consent for marriage’ is core material of a marriage. To give this consent, is one’s personal liberty under Art. 21 of The Constitution of India. Without obtaining it, going through a solemnization of marriage not only a void one but also can not subsist.

ix) After solemnization, the nature of relationship between petitioner and respondent was merely a ‘living together’ or ‘staying together’ and not matrimonial. As there was no consent for solemnization of marriage defacto the consent was absent. It neither prayed by the respondent, nor given by the petitioner. It never prayed & obtained by respondent from petitioner.

x) If respondent treated as wife of petitioner, then petitioner will be deprived from his fundamental right on marriage, as well, as this fundamental right on marriage of him, - will be violated.

xi) The said letter annexure A-1 wrote by the sister in law (wife of respondents brother). It is a hand written inland letter. Therefore she is the most vital witness of this case. She was called as witness on 2.8.2004, with due permission of the competent authority. But she did not appear on due date. On 14.9.2004, Hon’ble Vth ADJ of Bilaspur closed the witness chapter of petitioner without the consent of petitioner, keeping him in dark.

xii) Following points may kindly be considered for the interest of the justice.

a) Respondent on her witness admitted that her sister in law and brother was deeply involved in the process of marriage.

b) On her witness, respondent refuses to recognize any involvement of anx.A-1, on her marriage. According to her, She do not know, who wrote anx A-1, which bears the false statement on her age. Even she refused to recognize/ confirm the handwriting of the said letter anx A-1.

c) In fact, this will criminate respondent in a punishable offence under IPC, - from which she tried to get escaped.

d) Petitioner attracted the attention of Hon’ble trial court for witness of the said sister in law, which is extremely necessary, & a need of the hour, and without which, the very particular fact that, the annexure A-1 can not be proved and a reasonable and justified conclusion can not be drawn. Also process was paid on 2-8-04, for this propose. Against this oral submission, Hon’ble trial court ruled that the scope of taking witness of petitioner’s side was over and completed. Therefore he will be deprived from it.

e) On 09.11.2004 petitioner submitted verbally that for the sake of justice, it is extremely necessary to call the said sister in law as witness and allow petitioner, to give additional witness for the purpose of reply to new matters and the charges imposed by respondent over petitioner, without which, the case cannot be decided, on merit and according to law, but the learned judge refused it, vide his order dated 09.11.2004 which annexed as Annexure A-10.

f) On 17.11.2004, petitioner submitted in writing to call the said sister in law as witness and allow petitioner, to give additional witness. The letter dated 17.11.2004, annexed as Annexure A -11. But the learned judge refused it, vide his order dated 03.12.2004. The trial court judgment order dated 03.12.2004, annexed as Annexure A-12.

xiii) According to the point no 10 & 11 of the judgment order of trial court learned judge raised the question that, “it has to be seen that, whether respondent behaved fraudulently to communicate the material factor ‘age’ or not” and he concluded the matter, thus, that, “the petitioner had enough scope to know the whereabouts of respondent till then he agreed for marriage”, under this circumstances, it is disagreeable / disbeliaveable that respondent behaved fraudulently with petitioner. Petitioner most humbly submits that, the conclusion is materially erroneous due to the following reasons.

a) There is no ground that, a gentleman will disbelieve another gentleman, when the party gave the said data (regarding age of respondent) in writing vide annexure A-1.

b) Learned judge deliberately overlook the written communication, regarding age and its evidence value.

c) Firstly learned judge refused to take the witness of sister in law of respondent and thereafter declared that, Annexure A-1, not proved.

d) Learned judge neither consider nor given any weightage to the witness of petitioner, Smt K. Gupta & Shri M. Gupta who witnessed that the ‘respondent & her party’ lied at that time. (annexure A-1). Learned judge only gave weightage to the witness of respondent herself, who orally claim and did not submit any written document or evidence in her support. Witness is witness only. The witness value is equal for both the witness of petitioner or respondent. A party call for witness for the interest of justice only. There is no legal provision, to stop it, to divide it, ignoring the interest of justice.

xiv) Misrepresentation as to the ‘age’ and obtaining consent on that basis, - is a fraud. Concealment of the fact that, the wife is elder than her husband is a fraud. ‘While wife shown younger than husband’, such things happened only, to obtain consent fraudulently. It was known to the respondent. That if they communicate actual age the marriage negotiation will be stopped there. Normally, in India, wife is being chosen from the group of younger age, than the mail. It is a long lasting custom also. Witness of petitioner, Smt K. Gupta, Shri M.Gupta, Mr. S.Vedraman and Shamita Holder showed it. As a matter of fact, when in negotiated marriage, such marriage between an elder wife and younger husband occurs, court can presume the existence of fraud. The onus then lies on the elder wife to prove, that there was no fraud or concealment. Non disclosure of the material fact ‘age’ initiates consent for marriage and amounts to fraud.

(Citation:- (1) Babui Panmato Kuer Vs. Ram agya Singh, AIR 1968 Pat 190; (2) Som Dutt Vs. Raj Kumari AIR 1986 P & H 191; (3) P.J. More Vs. Valsa AIR 1992 Ker 176)

xv) The petition dismissed by the trial court & high Court on the ground that the petition presented after one year of marriage. Therefore it is time bared and attracts limitation under section 12 (2) (a) of the Hindu marriage Act.

Humble submission of the petitioner in this regard is that:-

The hon’ble trial court already condoned the delay, considering the genuine causes shown in the plaint. For that reason, petition is accepted and framed as an issue under sec 12 (1) (c) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

Prayer for condonation of delay in this regard, already is there in the petition of trial court in point no. 5 & 31 of Annexure A-8.

Respondent did not raise any question regarding this delay in her W.S. or presented any communication before the court in this regard.

xvi) a) A fraud cannot be legalized under the shelter of the sec 12 (2) (a) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

b) Sec 29(3) of the limitation act, 1963 opposes, the provision of Sec. 12(2)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

c) In a marriage, the legal value of solemnization is that, - it is a declaration of the intending spouses that they have ‘free and full consent’ on the solemnization of marriage.

d) According to supreme Court decision, a marriage is legally valid only after the marriage solemnized in due form (citation:- (1) Bhaurao Shankar Lokhandev Vs. State of Maharastra AIR 1965 S.C. 1584 (2) Kunwal Ram Vs. Himachal Pradesh Administration AIR 1966 S.C.614)

e) Consent for marriage is core material of a marriage. To give this consent is one’s personal liberty under Art 21 of the constitution of India. It can not be obtained by fraud.

Xvii) a) As a citizen of India petitioner entitled to get a trouble free matrimonial life with the spouse of his own choice. Nobody can restrict it by any means or manner.

b) It was a negotiated marriage. Petitioner was absolute innocent to the respondents and did not know one other on or before 1.12,1987 (Anx A-1). Respondent was legally bound to keep the interest of the petitioner.

As an example, if a person while attending a party or roaming in a garden, casually express that her age is 32 years, instead of her actual age 37 years, it is not a harm but if the same conveyed when marriage negotiation for her is going on, then it is a very serious matter and liable for legal action.

xviii) The nature of injury, to the adversely effected person is thus:-

a) Petitioner deprived from the personal liberty on marriage under Art 21 of the Constitution of India. Respondent deprived petitioner to have a choice among the other offers.

b) A good number of social economic & legall benefits given to a married woman which being snatched and undue advantages taken by respondent, in the name of marriage, which solemnized by cheating by personating.

c) Respondent claimed herself as legally wedded wife of petitioner - which she really not.

d) Respondent claimed herself as wife of petitioner and snatched all facilities, benefits which were undue to her and for which, she is not entitled. Even she occupied the office quarter of petitioner and hoot out petitioner from the quarter for which petitioner paying rent till today.

e) Neighbours, colleagues & the people of petitioner’s surroundings, looks into petitioner - in a questionable manner; which hurts petitioner, but for which he is not at all responsible in any manner or by any means. The injustice done is clear as daylight and there is nothing doubtful. It is a very sensitive and serious case. If such things are allowed to be going on, in lack of appropriate jurisdictional attention and the culprit, able to escape from the grip of law, the other parties of similar nature will be encouraged to do the same or similar offences, and the petitioner will be deprived from the just. Therefore to prevent the abuse of the process of the court and to secure interest and the ends of justice the matter should be carefully examined.

xix) It is also overlooked by the Hon’ble trial court and High Court that, what the nature of respondent possess;

a) Respondent forcedly occupies the official residence (i.e. quarter) of petitioner since she is being requested to quit the said quarter after the fraud exposed. In fact, she refuses to quit the quarter. But at the time of her witness, she claimed that she and petitioner living as husband and wife. It shows her nature and character very clearly.

b) Point no. 14 of Annexure A-12 used/ highlighted, a particular portion and leave the rest portion, as it opposes the fact, which Trial Court & High Court tried to established in favour of respondent. The fact is, though petitioner and respondent, resided under the same roof, but due to the fraud, they did not leave as husband and wife.

c) In a marriage, where fraud exists, there if any party has to suffer, then the party in fraud should suffer, not the party, who is victim of fraud. On this ground also respondent should leave the quarter.

d) According to The Supreme Court decision, a marriage is legally valid only after the marriage solemnized in due form, i.e. ‘with free and full consent’ (Citation:- (1) Bhaurao Shankar Lokhandev Vs State of Maharasthra AIR 1965 S.C. 1584 (2) Kunwal Ram Vs. Himachal Pradesh Administration AIR 1966 SC 614

e) An adult person has always a right to live with another adult person, out of the matrimonial bounding. Therefore it cannot be said that as they are living under the same roof, therefore they were living as husband and wife. Very particularly:-

-Where the background of long quarrel exist between the parties;

-Which agreed by both the parties;

-One living with forced occupation and against the will of the legal occupant.

f) If solemnization obtained without full and free consent it is a void one and not voidable, because, it is always open before the parties, that they solemnize their marriage again with free and full consent, if it is not there in earlier solemnization. When an alternative legal provision is there, which is much more clear and prominent to test the ‘free & full consent on solemnization’, then sec 12 (2) (a) of the Hindu marriage Act used to suppress and hide the bare facts of fraud on solemnization. The act 12 (1) (c) violates the fundamental right of petitioner by putting it in voidable group instead of void group. The act 12 (2) (a) makes it more horrible ignoring the fundamental right of an individual. The tactful approach of respondent clearly indicates that, one can easily make a fraud, - legalize under the shelter of Sec. 12 (2) (a) of The Hindu Marriage Act. Therefore, sec. 12 (1) (c) of the Hindu Marriage Act, should be placed in the group of ‘void marriage’ instead of ‘voidable marriage’ group as because the legacy of the said act threatened one’s personal liberty under Art 21 of The Constitution of India.

g) It is a fundamental principle of law that - a person can not contract, out of his/her right. Respondent did the same with petitioner.

Therefore, a contract, i.e. solemnize the marriage by cheating by personation’ is void only and not voidable.

In case of void marriage neither delay, nor conduct constitutes a bar. A marriage which is void in the eye of law is dead and non-exists, whether or not a party seeks a declaration to that effect or not. The same tune runs in the phraseology of Sec 11 & 12 of the Hindu marriage act for both void and voidable marriages.

h) Considering the above points see 12 (2) (a) of the Hindu marriage act, is inconsistent with the provisions of part III, fundamental rights of a citizen of India, of The Constitution of India.

xx) a) Solemnization without full and free consent constitute no marriage. It is an empty shell. Without obtaining it, going through solemnization of marriage not only a void one but also cannot subsist

b) According to the clause (ii) of sec 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which amended and codified the law relating to the marriages among Hindus, under the heading “Hindu marriage” under the marginal note “conditions for a Hindu marriage” - a marriage may be solemnized between any two Hindus if at the time of marriage, both the parties are capable of giving a valid consent to it, and given it.

c) According to clause (1) of Sec 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, under the heading ‘Nulty of marriage & divorce’ under the marginal note’ voidable marriage, a solemnized marriage is voidable on the ground that, the marriage is in contravention of the condition specified in clause (ii) of Sec 5, where the consent of one party obtained, by fraud/by cheating by personation as to any material fact, concerned the party.

d) According to clause (2) of Sec 12 of the Hindu marriage act, - the matter to be presented within one year of the fraud had been discovered and the party fraud not lived with full consent with the other party.

e) According to Art 16(2) of the universal declaration of the Human Rights, 1948 “Marriage shall be entered into only with free and full consent of the intending spouses.

f) According to the Art 23(3) of the International Convent on civil and political rights, 1966, of which India is one of the signatory – “no marriage shall be entered into without the free and full consent of the intending spouses”.

g) Therefore, the intention of the legislature is thus - in a Hindu Marriage, it is the vital condition that, both the parties in solemnization of marriage obtained a valid consent i.e., ‘a free and full consent’ obtained on or before the solemnization unless otherwise the solemnization is void.

h) Therefore, it is not the solemnization but “the consent” which validate a marriage. As the marriage solemnized ‘without free & full consent’, for which consent of petitioner was absent in solemnization and thereafter lived together ‘without full consent’ therefore the nature of relationship between petitioner and respondents was merely a ‘living together’ or ‘staying together’ and not matrimonial.

xxi) The following is the custom of the family of petitioner:-

‘A male do not marry a female, elder in age, than him.’

a) This custom, having been

Continuously and uniformly observed

for a long time,

b) Has obtained

the force of law

among the family:

c) This rule is

i) Certain;

ii) Not unreasonable;

iii) Not opposed to public policy;

d) It has not been discontinued by the family.

e) According to the sec.5 of The HINDU MARRIAGE Act, the conditions for a HINDU MARRIAGE is that, the,

bridegroom has completed the age of twentyone years;

bride has completed the age of eighteen years; at the time of the marriage. Which clearly shows the silent support, to the above custom.



f) Validity of the ‘consent’, is one of the vital conditions for Hindu marriages under, sec 5 of The Hindu marriage act, where it is stated that, at the time of the marriage,

(i) Neither party will be incapable of giving a valid consent to it; &

(ii) Though capable of giving a valid consent, has been suffering from mental disorder of such a kind or to such an extent as to be unfit for marriage and the procreation of children.

In other words, both the parties will have to be capable of giving a valid consent to it, & given on it, & even the said party has been suffering from some kind of mental disorder; then also; the party will not get any relaxation on it.

g)The fraudulent act of the respondent, opposes the above policies.

(xxii) Petitioner prays for a declaration by this Hon’able court that the - ‘Consent for marriage’ is one’s personal liberty under Art.21 of The Constitution of India.

To give this consent is one’s personal liberty under Art.21 of The Constitution of India

‘Consent for marriage’ is core material of a marriage.

Without obtaining it, going through a solemnization of marriage not only a void one but also can not subsist.

At present the total light focused upon the solamonization of marriage. Where solamonization of marriage held, then it presumed that, the consent is automatically present. But ‘Consent for marriage’ can be obtained by fraud, as happened with the petitioner. Due to cheating by personation by the respondent; there was no consent, for

solemnization of marriage, therefore the consent was absent.

(a) It neither prayed by the respondent, nor given by the petitioner.

(b) It never prayed & obtained by respondent from petitioner.

Therefore after solemnization, the nature of relationship between petitioner and respondent was merely a ‘living together’ or ‘staying together’ and not matrimonial.

(xxiii) Respondent wrote in her letter that “according to petitioner, he has an illegal child”. The nature of coupling or the birth of a child within or without wedlock does not bear the legitimacy or illegitimacy of the child. Where binding between couples is in question - it may be legitimate or illegitimate. But the birth of a child - can not be, and should not be stamped as legitimate or illegitimate one, because of its parent’s nature of coupling. Neither the nature nor the Almighty marked a child as legitimate or illegitimate one. Above all, the child is not at all responsible for its own birth. Therefore, petitioner feels that, due to the nature of coupling of the parents nobody has the right to express it in this manner i.e. by raising the question of legitimacy or illegitimacy of the child. It is against the basic human values also. Every child of India to-day is the citizen of India, tomorrow. They are having equal rights. There is no justification to lowering down to a particular child due to the parent’s nature of coupling. This may be the cause of growing ‘inferiority complex” among the “tender infant mind” and a “social and psychological barrier” to its natural development of the child. The child may be deprived from “equal treatment”, from her various spheres of movement in schools, colleges among the friend circles and their parents.

Spreading and campaigning in favour of such attitude in various levels, where her parents move, may be the cause of dangerous harm to the infant baby. It is alarming also, for taking a right decision, to set the whole thing in a right manner, within the limited available scope.

The respondent understands well that the petitioner loves his infant female baby. She is the only issue of him and it is his softest corner also. Still then, she hits the girl child by raising the point of legitimacy with an intention to hit the parents of the child. It is an intentional hitting, which hurts the tender feeling of the petitioner, as well as a cause of great harm to the infant baby of the petitioner.

While the respondent trying to get the sympathy and shelter under the popular slogan of “woman torture”’ simultaneously, she herself is active, to snatch the butter and bread of another woman- who is the mother of a female infant baby, and the service of the father, of that female child The intention is to destroy the mother and her female infant baby.

(xxiv) The word, ‘Legitimacy’ frequently used before the word ‘children’ in The Hindu marriage Act, 1955. The word ‘Legitimacy’, ‘legitimate’ or ‘illegitimate’ used before the word ‘children’ may kindly be stopped and banned, particularly at least in the field of legal area, as because the said word bears a meaning of ‘busterdy’ and illegality of the birth a child. A child born,- is always ‘a pious’, and nobody has the right to abuse it for the sake of it’s birth. A child should never be classified in this manner.

(xxv) There are two different sets of laws, exixting under The Hindu Marriage act 1955, (act 25 0f 1955), for the purpose of divorce. One based on ‘no fault’ basis and the other ‘fault’ basis.

(a) section 13B, divorce by mutual consent.

(b) section 13, divorce.



The above acts classified the divorce procedure into two categories, namely,

(1) Laws operated on the basis of ‘no fault’ ie, personal liberty under article 21 of The constitution of India, or can say, divorce on own discreation.

(2) Laws operated on the basis of the ‘fault of the other spouse’.

In the first category, following group belong:-

(a) section 13B divorce by mutual consent.

In the second category, following group belong

(b) section 13 divorce.

Section 13B, which based upon the divorce by mutual consent, is purely based upon the personal liberty under The Article 21 of The Constitution of India, - of the concerned spouses.

But the procedure of divorce under section 13 of The Hindu Marriage act 1955 is providing a completely separate set, where the total thing is based upon the fault of the other spouse.

According to the section 13B of The Hindu Marriage act 1955, divorce by mutual consent, the grounds for divorce are:-



(x) Spouses have been living separately for a period of one year or more;

(y) Spouses have not been able to live together;

(z) Spouses have mutually agreed that the marriage should be dissolved.

Then the court will Pass a decree of divorce declaring the marriage to be dissolved. Here it is to be noted that, in all points, spouses themselves are the deciding elements and not anybody elese. Here both the spouses poses the power of taking decision on it’s own. The same thing not happening with the group (b).

Therefore, the state should not deny the petitioner equality before the law and the equal protection of the laws.

The section 13B of The Hindu Marriage act 1955, more clearly shows that, to obtain divorce is basically - a personal liberty, and this section is purely based upon The Article 21 of The Constitution of India, - of the concerned spouse. When one group is allowed to obtain divorce on their own will, then there is no reason why the other group will be deprived from it.

A spousal relationship is purely based upon the act and react of the two spouses. The rest of the world has no relation with their internal act and react. Only the ‘financial obligations’ – if any, arose due to the marriage – can be considered by the court.

Otherwise, the court / The Government / and The Parliament, have no relation, no place, no room to interfere into the spousal relationship. The spousal relationship is very specifically, a personal liberty under Article 21 of The Constitution of India. Therefore at least the starting point, ie, ‘solemnization of marriage’ and the end point that is the ‘divorce’ should be treated as, a personal liberty under Article 21 of The Constitution of India.

(xxvi) Here, it is also to be considered that The Hon’ble Supreme Court already requested The Supreme Authority of India, through the Government of India to make law for divorce, where the sole ground will be the irretrievable breakdown of marriage.



2. Question(s) of Law



1) Whether learned Trial court & High court right in not appreciating that - giving consent on his marriage is a personal liberty of petitioner under 21 of The Constitution of India?

2) Whether learned Trial court & High court right in not appreciating that the said marriage solemnized, by cheating by personation.

3) Whether learned Trial court & High court right in not appreciating that the said solemnization is voidable under sec 12 (1) ( c) of the Hindu marriage Act.

4) Whether learned Trial court & High court failed in not appreciating that the said solemnization is void & nullity u/s 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

5) Whether learned Trial court & High court failed to realize that the said solemnization can not get the safeguard of Sec 12 (2) of the Hindu marriage Act?

6) Whether learned Trial court & High court right in not appreciating that - such marriage, violated the fundamental rights of the petitioner on marriage under Art 21 of The Constitution of India

7) Whether learned Trial court & High court failed to realize that - to obtain divorce is a personal liberty under Art 21 of The Constitution of India.

8) Whether the courts bellows were wrong in not appreciating the hard evidences available on record, though all the grounds were proved, but they declared it not proved, which constitutes illegality and infirmity in the impugned judgments of trial court & high court.

9) Whether the courts bellows were right in not allowing petitioner to take the witness of respondent’s sister in law, in the context of refusing to recognize the handwriting of the said sister in law, by respondent?

10) Whether the courts bellows were failed to trace out the prayer for condonation of delay which is already there in the trial court petition, point no. 5 & 31?

11) Whether the courts bellows traced out the reason of such refusal in their judgment?

12) Whether the courts bellows were failed to appreciate that the so called marriage is irretrievably broken-down?

13) Whether the courts bellows were failed to appreciate that the respondent started her matrimonial life in a fraudulent manner by communicating the age of the bride was 32 years, where her actual age was 36 years 11 months 12 days say about 37 years.

14) Whether the courts bellows were failed to appreciate that the respondent started her matrimonial life in a fraudulent manner by communicating the age of the bride was 32 years, where her actual age was, say about 37 years, which is a criminal offence under sec.416 & 419 of The Indian Penal Code?

15) Whether the courts bellows were right in not appreciating that the act of fraudulent behavior by the respondent to the petitioner before and after

45

the marriage attracts the provisions of Sec 13 (1) (i a) and (i b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

16) Whether the courts bellow were right in not appreciating that the act of fraudulent behavior by the respondent to the petitioner not only constitutes the consent obtained by fraud, but also constitutes a treatment of mental cruelty & dissertation.

17) Whether the courts bellow were failed to appreciate that It the respondent withdraw herself from the marriage admitting the fraudulent behavior on her part, which is an absolute truth - then it did not constitute a mental cruelty, but, when the fraudulent behavior was exposed, she forcedly tried to deny it and imposed over the petitioner - an unwanted, undesirable, matrimonial life?

18) Whether the courts bellow were failed to note that the living together or staying together with respondent under the same roof was under ‘compulsion’ & not ‘voluntarily’ – by the petitioner?

19) Whether the courts bellow were failed to note that the fraud was discovered while respondent came with her office records for the purpose of joining the government school, Jamnipali, where she presently posted – which is clearly written in the trial court & high court petition ?

20) Whether the courts bellow were right in not appreciating that the marriage is a negotiated one, petitioner is an innocent person, respondent is a highly educated person & she was bound to keep the interest of the petitioner?

21) Whether the courts bellow were right in not appreciating that respondent can not communicate a false information, very particularly where marriage is concerned?

22) Whether the courts bellow were justified enough in their judgments that, petitioner had enough scope to satisfy himself in regard to respondent’s - age as because ,by seeing only, it is impossible to know the exact age of a person?

23) Whether the courts bellows were wrong in not appreciating that, the respondent wrote the letter dated 20.09.1999 to the top level employer of petitioner and the general public, some false complains against petitioner whose hard evidence is available in the form of ‘letter’, and respondent also confirms in her witness that – ‘she wrote the letter’.

24) Whether the courts bellows were wrong in not appreciating that, the respondent’s brother wrote the letter dated 05.02.1999 to the employer of petitioner, the then ministers of the state of M.P., , some false complains against petitioner whose hard evidence is available in the form of ‘letter’, and respondent also told in her witness that – her brother wrote the letter.

25) Whether the courts bellows were justified enough to overlook & bypass the hard evidences like false complains and defamatory letters, written by respondent and her brother, which respondent also agreed in her witness.

26) Whether the courts bellow were right in not appreciating that it is impossible to live petitioner with respondent under the same roof due to the feeling of strong insecurity ?

27) Whether the courts bellow were right in not appreciating that the petitioner already reported the trial court and ask for direction to live separately ?

28) Whether the courts bellow were failed to note that the respondent threatened, blackmailed & did not allow petitioner to take the house hold items –

even the cloths of the petitioner from his own quarter ?

29) Whether the courts bellow were failed to note that there is an investigation report of the police official; dated 30.1.95?

30) Whether the courts bellow were right in not appreciating to allow petitioner to provide further witness, while it was an extreme need of the hour?

31) Whether the courts bellow were cleverly and tactfully stop taking witness to provide undue favor to respondent?

32) Whether the courts bellow were failed to note that the said quarter from which petitioner was ejected by respondent, is the property of petitioner by virtue of his service, and for which he is paying rent till today ?

33) Whether the courts bellows were justified in their observations that, ‘the respondent had set herself on fire and report to the police’, where the fact is petitioner report the same to police station, which confirmed by petitioner in his witness, whereas respondent told in her witness that ‘there is no police report’.

34) Whether the courts belows were right in not appreciating that cruelty committed by the respondent caused grievous hurt to the petitioner and unbearable mental agony for which the petitioner was forced to leave the house and started living separately and thus rightly claimed separation/divorce as per Section 13(1) of Hindu Marriage Act?

35) Whether the courts below were right in not appreciating that though the parties were living under a common roof but they were not leaving as husband & wife as serious disputes arose between them and on that reason spousal relationship was lost there.

36) Whether the courts bellows were justified to bypass the statement of Smt. Karabi Gupta that respondent told her “it is very specifically the petitioner for whom; she was not able to conceive any issue.”

37) Whether the courts bellows were concentrated their pointed attention in the words of Smt. Karabi Gupta’s statement “very specifically”, which clearly reflects that, according to respondent petitioner is liable for respondent’s issueless ness?

38) Whether the courts bellows were concentrated their pointed attention that the said abuse is a sexual abuse which described by a lady ?

39) Whether the courts bellows were justified in making a story in favor of respondent with an intention to dilute a serious matter of cruelty i.e., respondent abuse petitioner ‘impotent’.

40) Whether the courts bellow overlook that in her written statement (point no 6) and some other places respondent given in writing with signature that due to petitioner she is issueless which bears the same meaning?

41) Whether the courts bellows were unjustified in bypass and overlook the issue that, respondent is cruel enough to the petitioner, in abusing his innocent girl child by the word ‘illegal’?

42) Whether the courts bellows were failed to note that respondent wrote in her letter that petitioner has an illegal child?

43) Whether the courts bellows were unjustified in not keeping their pointed attentation on the issue that the birth of a child within or without wedlock, does not bear the ‘legitimacy’ or ‘illegitimacy’ of that child?

44) Whether the courts bellows were right in not appreciating that raising the question of ‘illegitimacy’ of a child is against the basic human values & every child of India to-day, is the citizen of India, tomorrow, & they are having equal rights?

45) Whether the courts bellows were right in not appreciating that the girl child is the only issue of petitioner and it is his softest corner also, still then, respondent hits the girl child by raising the point of legitimacy with an intention to hit petitioner intentionally to hurt his tender feelings and reach harm to the petitioner?

46) Whether the courts bellow were failed to note that While the respondent trying to get the sympathy and shelter under the popular slogan of “woman torture”’ simultaneously, she herself is active, to torture the female infant baby of petitioner with intention to hit him?

47) Whether the courts bellows were right in not appreciating that respondent hate petitioner’s religion, Islam & in various, stages different places and in her written statement, the respondent abused and condemned Islam.

3. Grounds

a. The case not decided, (i) on merit; & (ii) according to law. The judgment order delivered on, 22.04.08 by the Hon’able High Court of Chattishgarh & judgment order dated 03.12.2004 passed by Hon’ble D.J. of Korba is bad in law and contrary to the settled law of the land.

b. The trial court & high court failed to interpret and appreciate the provisions of Section 12 (1) (c); 12 (2) (a); of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and did not scrutinize the real meaning and intention of the legislature.

c. Life and liberty under the Article 21 of the Constitution of India directly related with matrimonial life. One can not be deprived from it by a tricky way.

d. To determine a relationship whether matrimonial or not is a mixed question of the fact & law. Alone the fact or law cannot determine it.

e. The basic intention and the total intention as a whole, of The Hindu Marriage Act are, to provide a matrimonial life. If there is a failure, the said relationship should be rejected otherwise it will go against the intention of the legislation.

f. The purpose of matrimonial relationship is to enjoy the life, if there is a failure, and then it can not be established, by ruling or law. A party, who has cheated another of his rightful claims, can not be allowed to deprive further from his right.

g. Through the petition is against respondent by petitioner, but, Hon’ble D.J. Korba allowed respondent to record a lot of complains against petitioner and did not allow him to reply/further witness on it. Thus petitioner deprived from his legitimate claims.

h. A complain cannot be the reply/answer of a complain.

i. Where only two persons are staying in a deserted manner, learned judge demand their, additional witness and ignore the evidences available Where petitioner’s evidence and witness rejected without showing any cause there respondent’s oral witness accepted as a concrete witness and evidence.

j. Trial court use the witness of petitioner and portion of the plaint, in a broken shape, and tried to prove that petitioner failed to provide witness.

k. The judgment order is erroneous.

l. The learned D.J. deprived petitioner from taking the witness of the sister in law of respondent;

54

petitioner was also not allowed to give additional witness and produce other witness and evidence on the new facts, issues and charges raised and imposed by respondent on her witness - by rejecting the written petition of petitioner.

m. Hon’ble D.J. Korba, carefully avoided the favorable points of petitioner and highlighted the negative points. On the contrary, highlighted favorable points of respondent and ignore the negative side of her witness and evidence produced.

n. Hon’ble justice, avoid, by pass; and suppress the strong evidences of petitioner and highlighted and rely weak and false witness of respondent.

o. Hon’ble trial court made a story in favour of respondent, which is highly objectionable, and not the job of a judge.

Averment:-

That, the present petitioner has not filed any other petition in any High Court or the Supreme Court of India on the subject matter of the present petition.

That, the present petitioner has filed a SLP in the Supreme Court of India on the different subject matter of the present petition. The dairy no of SLP is, 21666, filed on 30.07.08.



INTERIM RELIEF PRAYED FOR:-



(1) The Hon’ble D.J. Korba may please be directed (a) to call the sister in law of respondent as witness (b) allow appellant to give additional witness and submit evidence on the new matters, allegations and issues raised by the respondent in her witness.



(2) Stay on execution of the decree on C.S No. 37-A/2004 dated o3.12.2004.



(3) May kindly order to vacate the unauthorized occupation by respondent to petitioner’s office quarter.

PRAYER

In the above premises, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased:-

(1) Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India may kindly allow this writ petition, and set aside the order of the High Court of Chattishgarh dated 22.04.08 and the order passed by the Hon’ble D.J. Korba, Bilaspur dated 03.12.2004 in C.S. No. 37-A/2004 for ends of justice.

(2) Section 12 (2) of The Hindu Marriage Act 1955, may kindly be decleared void as it inconsistent with the provisions of the fundamental rights, guranted under part III of The Constitution of India.

(3) The Hon’ble D.J. Korba may please be directed

(a) to call the sister in law of respondent as witness.

(b) Allow petitioner to give additional witness and submit evidence on the new matter, allegations and issues raised by the respondent in her witness.

(4) It is prayed that, the said marriage may please be declared null and void.

(5) It is prayed that, a decree of divorce be passed considering the above mentioned grounds, in the interest of justice.

(6) May kindly grant judicial separation under the Hindu Marriage Act.

(7) May kindly order to vacate the unauthorized occupation by respondent to petitioner’s quarter.



(8) Petitioner prays for a declaration by this Hon’able court that the - ‘Consent for marriage’ is one’s personal liberty under Art.21 of The Constitution of India.

(9) Stay on execution the order of the High Court of Chattishgarh dated 22.04.08 & of the Decree of trial court on C.S. No. 37-A/2004 dated on 03.12.2004.

(10) The word, ‘Legitimacy’ frequently used before the word ‘children’ in The Hindu marriage Act, 1955. The word ‘Legitimacy’, ‘legitimate’ or ‘illegitimate’ used before the word ‘children’ may kindly be stopped and banned, a child should never be classified in this manner.

(11) ‘Divorce’ may be decleared as, personal liberty under article 21 of The Constituion of India. Section 13 of The Hindu Marriage Act may please be declared as unconstitutional.

(12) To pass such other orders and further orders as may be deemed necessary on the facts and in the circumstances of the case.

FOR WHICH ACT OF KINDNESS, THE PETITIONER SHALL AS INDUTY BOUND, EVER PRAY.

FILED BY:-

ARUP KUMAR GUPTA

PETITIONER-IN-PERSON

DRAWN ON

FILED ON

NEW DELHI