Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 258 (PNJ)

Parminder Charan Singh v. Harjit Kaur

2001-02-23

R.L ANAND

body2001
JUDGMENT R.L Anand, J. - Husband Dr. Parminder Charan Singh has filed the present appeal No. 48-M of 1999 and it has been directed against the judgment dated 22.2.1999 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Chandigarh, who dismissed the petition of the petitioner-appellant under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for the annulment of marriage on the ground of fraud committed upon him by the respondent-Harjit Kaur. 2. The brief facts of the case are that parties were married on 28.1.1990 according to the Hindu Rites and Ceremonies (Sikh) at Local Gurdwara at Delhi. It was registered with the Registrar of Marriages on 30.1.1990. The marriage was initially consumated at Delhi and other parts of the country. Thereafter, the appellant went to Germany in February, 1990. The respondent also joined the appellant in Germany in March, 1990. 3. The case set up by the appellant is that respondent came to India in June, 1990 to see her parents and then she went back to Germany in September, 1990. After about 3-4 months of her stay there, the respondent started showing her true colours and the mother of the appellant was informed on telephone by her son i.e. the appellant, that the main aim of the respondent was to grab money and property of the appellant. She tried to pick up quarrels and fight without any reason with the appellant and would not used to do any household work. Then she also used to malign the appellant before his friends and acquaintances and also used to become abusive and started physically attacking him. 4. In the month of July, 1991, the mother of the respondent also went to Germany and stayed in the house of the appellant. A son was born on 14.7.1991 to the respondent. The behaviour of the respondent thereafter became very violent, outrageous and intolerable. The mother of the respondent, after staying there for 3 months came back to India. In February, 1992, the respondent along with her child and without informing the appellant and without any reasons surreptitiously left the appellant causing great mental tension to him. After strenuous efforts and mental sufferings, the appellant came to know that she has come to India and staying with her parents in Chandigarh. In February, 1992, the respondent along with her child and without informing the appellant and without any reasons surreptitiously left the appellant causing great mental tension to him. After strenuous efforts and mental sufferings, the appellant came to know that she has come to India and staying with her parents in Chandigarh. Then the efforts of the appellant, who had specially came to India to make her agreeable to live with her husband as a dutiful wife and like a respectable person, had, however, no effect on the respondent as well as her parents. The appellant sometimes in the end of October, 1992, got a hint that the respondent before the present marriage was not unmarried. After a lot of investigations, the appellant found out that the respondent was married with another person, before her present marriage, but he was not in possession of the documents or the name and address of the person, to whom she was married. The appellant started more deeply probing this fact and found that the respondent was earlier married with Sanjit Singh of Meerut, U.P. The petitioners relations contacted Sanjit Singh in June, 1993, who confirmed this fact. Sanjit Singh also told that the respondent and her father had filed frivolous cases and extorted Rs. 6 lacs for obtaining divorce by mutual consent. 5. The case further propounded by the appellant is that neither the respondent nor any of her family members ever informed the appellant or his family members about the previous marriage of the respondent. As a matter of fact, they concealed the same from the appellant and his family members before the marriage of the appellant with the respondent that she was married at the time of marriage to the appellant, and the consent of the appellant to the marriage was obtained by the respondent and her family members by fraud, inasmuch as there is mis-representation and concealment concerning the respondent and deception as to a particular material facts and circumstances concerning the respondent. The appellant would have never agreed to marry the respondent, if he had known that the respondent was earlier also married and the respondents first marriage with the said Sanjit Singh had been annulled by a decree of divorce on the ground of mutual consent and that she filed complaints under the Anti Dowry Cell and various other complaints and extorted Rs. 6 lacs as a consideration. 6 lacs as a consideration. It is further alleged that before the marriage officer, at the time of registration, the respondent had filed a false affidavit on 29.1.1990 alleging herself to be unmarried. That although the German Embassy was informed during the month of October, 1992, that no Visa should be issued to the respondent to enter Germany, as soon as there was suspicion about the respondents previous marriage, but the respondent somehow managed to enter Germany in December, 1992, and forced the appellant to allow the respondent to enter into the matrimonial home. It may be mentioned here that the appellant also filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act and sought divorce on the grounds of desertion and cruelty. The appellant has further alleged in the present petition under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act that he came to know about the previous marriage of the respondent somewhere in the month of June, 1993, therefore, the present petition was filed by him in Delhi Courts on 1.10.1993. 6. Notice of the petition was given to the respondent who filed the written statement and denied the allegations. With regard to the factum of solemnisation of marriage, the stand of the respondent is that in response to the advertisement of the appellant in the matrimonial columns of Hindustan Times Newspaper dated 14.5.1989, the respondents father had written a letter dated 14.5.1989 containing the bio-data of the respondent clearly mentioning that respondent has legally divorced status. The mother of the appellant replied vide her letter dated 27.5.1989. In this letter, appellants mother had written at 10th line that "he is also legally divorced". It is further alleged that the negotiations for marriage between the parties started in May, 1989 and took almost 8 months, during which period, the appellant and his family members made due enquiries about the divorce of the respondent from her first husband and after fully satisfying themselves, the appellants consented to marry the respondent, which consent was exercised by the appellant of his own free will and without any force, fraud or coercion. The answering respondents family never had any intention for hiding the fact of the respondents legally divorced status while looking for a suitable person for respondents re-marriage. There was absolutely no concealment. The answering respondents family never had any intention for hiding the fact of the respondents legally divorced status while looking for a suitable person for respondents re-marriage. There was absolutely no concealment. On 16.7.1989, the respondents family had inserted an advertisement of the respondent in the Matrimonial Columns of the Tribune Newspaper, in which the fact of legally divorced status of the answering respondent was clearly disclosed. Interestingly, the appellants own advertisement does not disclose the fact of the appellants legally divorced status. It was also pleaded by the respondent that the petition is time barred. With regard to the knowledge, the stand of the respondent is that in the month of October, 1992, the German Embassy was informed that no visa should be issued to the respondent to enter Germany, since there was suspicion about respondents previous marriage. In August, 1992, a communication was received from the appellant by the respondent that the appellant had got the name of the respondent cancelled in March, 1992, at Stuttgard and never got it registered anywhere else. A communication dated 21.9.1992 was also received by the respondent from German Embassy, informing that the visa was being refused as the necessary formalities for grant of visa were not fulfilled. On clarification, it was informed that the appellant was not interested in respondents or their sons return to Germany. Other allegations were also denied by the respondent. 7. The appellant filed a rejoinder. He admitted that advertisement was given on 14.5.1989. However, the alleged letter dated 14.5.1989 wherein the factum of marriage of the respondent was mentioned was denied. The letter written by the mother of the appellant informing the legal status of the appellant vide letter dated 27.5.1989 was also denied. 8. From the above pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues :- "1. Whether the consent of the petitioner of the marriage was obtained by the respondent and her family members by fraud by concealing material facts concerning respondent as alleged ? If so, its effect ? OPP 2. Whether the petition is barred in view of the provisions of Section 12(2)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act as alleged in the written statement ? OPR 3. Relief." 9. Parties led their respective evidence. If so, its effect ? OPP 2. Whether the petition is barred in view of the provisions of Section 12(2)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act as alleged in the written statement ? OPR 3. Relief." 9. Parties led their respective evidence. Earlier this case was pending at Delhi and under the orders of the Supreme Court, the matter was transferred to Chandigarh in the Court of Additional District Judge who decided the petition under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The appellant appeared as his own witness as PW1. He examined one Dalit Rai of Germany, who stated that in February, 1993, respondent met him and told that she was not living with the appellant. She also told that before this marriage, she was already a married women and this fact she had concealed from the appellant at the time of marriage. So, he did not want to live with her. He also appeared as a witness in the German Court for the appellant. There also, he stated that the respondent met him and told that she was unmarried at the time of marriage with the appellant. That the appellant, as well as, the respondent were visiting his house separately after their separation. In June, 1993, the appellant had shown him the photograph of earlier marriage of the respondent. PW3 Mrs. G.S. Bhatia is the mother of the appellant and has supported the version of the appellant i.e. her own son. PW4 is Sukhpal Singh, who is the Record Keeper of Tees Hazari Courts and has produced the certified copies Exhibits PW4/1 to Exhibit PW4/4. PW5 is Sardar Sanjit Singh, who has stated that he met Mrs. G.S. Bhatia for the first time in June, 1993, when she came to him and told Mrs. Bhatia that he was married previously to the respondent and gave a copy of the decree of diverse. PW6 is J.K. Bhatia, Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Delhi. This witness has produced the photocopy of the application for registration Exhibit PW6/1 and photocopy of the affidavit Exhibit PW6/2. On the other hand, the respondent examined her father who stated about the factum of responding to the matrimonial column by writing a letter Exhibit RW1/2 and the letter sent by the mother of the petitioner Exhibit PW3/R1. This witness has produced the photocopy of the application for registration Exhibit PW6/1 and photocopy of the affidavit Exhibit PW6/2. On the other hand, the respondent examined her father who stated about the factum of responding to the matrimonial column by writing a letter Exhibit RW1/2 and the letter sent by the mother of the petitioner Exhibit PW3/R1. He has stated that the appellant and his relations were informed about the earlier marriage and for seeking subsequent divorce of the respondent. PW3 Mrs. Rajinderjit Kaur alias Mrs. G.S. Bhatia appeared in rebuttal evidence and stated about letter dated 27.5.1989 and in this letter, she stated about the qualities of her son and then the disqualification i.e. that he is a clean shaven Sikh and also legally divorced. The letter Exhibit RW1/2 was not the letter sent by the father of the respondent. She has also produced the other documents on the file. 10. The learned trial Court for the reasons given in paras 11 to 17 decided issue No. 1 against the petitioner-appellant and it will be worthwhile for me to reproduce these paras. Paras 11 to 17 are reproduced as under :- "11. Issue No. 1 As far as the factum of affidavit Exhibit PW6/2 and application for registration Exhibit PW6/1, in these documents, the respondent is shown as unmarried. Whereas, the petitioner is shown as divorcee. 12. It is the case of the respondent that the documents were filed by the petitioner and she was only made to sign the documents. This fact has been admitted by the petitioner while appearing as PW1. Moreover, the affidavit Exhibit PW6/2 only mentioned that she was unmarried before 28th day of January, 1990. Once the divorce with the earlier husband has been obtained, she would remain unmarried. 13. It is correct that had it been specifically mentioned that the respondent was a divorcee, it would have clinched the issue. But the fact that the petitioner has prepared the documents and got the signatures of the respondent on these documents, much reliance cannot be taken upon these documents. The factum of concealment is to be seen at the time of marriage and not subsequently. 14. Admittedly, a letter Exhibit PW3/R-3 was written by the mother of the petitioner. In this letter, she had referred to the letter dated 14.5.1989 sent by Surinder Singh, father of the respondent. The factum of concealment is to be seen at the time of marriage and not subsequently. 14. Admittedly, a letter Exhibit PW3/R-3 was written by the mother of the petitioner. In this letter, she had referred to the letter dated 14.5.1989 sent by Surinder Singh, father of the respondent. After detailing the status of the family and qualities of the petitioner, she had mentioned that he is also legally divorced. The word "ALSO" is very crucial for deciding this petition. Despite application moved by the respondent, the letter dated 14.5.1989 was not produced by the petitioner on the ground that it is not traceable. RW1 Surinder Singh while appearing in the witness box has produced the carbon copy of this letter as Exhibit RW1/2. This letter was written on 14.5.1989. Since the letter was to be sent through the box office, there could not be any receipt with regard to the sending of this letter. Petitioner having not produced the original, I do not agree with the counsel for the petitioner, that this letter Exhibit RW1/2 is a concocted letter. In this letter, it is specifically mentioned that, however, she is innocent legally divorcee. The letter dated 27.5.1989 written by the mother of the petitioner which is exhibited as Exhibit PW3/R3 mentioning the word also makes it abundantly clear that the father of the respondent has already intimated about the factum of the respondent being divorcee. 15. Moreover, in July, 1989, the father of the respondent had given a matrimonial add inviting a match for the respondent. In that advertisement also, the status of the respondent has been mentioned as legally divorced. 16. It is the case of the petitioner that the Tribune Newspaper has no circulation in Delhi, as well as, in Germany, but the fact remains that the respondent was not willing to conceal this fact from all the sundry. The negotiations continued from May, 1989, till the first month of 1990, when the marriage was solemnised. Moreover, the mother of the petitioner in the advertisement dated 14.5.1989 has not mentioned about the factum of the petitioner being also divorcee. This fact came to the knowledge of the respondent only by letter written by the mother of the petitioner and the same is Exhibit RW3/R3. 17. The petitioner was admittedly having conversation with his mother. Moreover, the mother of the petitioner in the advertisement dated 14.5.1989 has not mentioned about the factum of the petitioner being also divorcee. This fact came to the knowledge of the respondent only by letter written by the mother of the petitioner and the same is Exhibit RW3/R3. 17. The petitioner was admittedly having conversation with his mother. The mother of the petitioner, who is staying at Delhi was in fact given advertisement and was pressing the proposal of marriage. Thus, I hold that the respondent has not concealed the factum of earlier marriage and the respondents marriage is not liable to be annulled on the ground of fraud. The statements of the witnesses examined by the petitioner are of interested witnesses and is of no help. Specially, when PW2 Daljit Rai has stated that he came in contact with the parties only in February, 1993. The issue, as such, is decided against the petitioner." 11. Issue No. 2 was also decided against the petitioner-appellant for the reasons given in paras 18 and 19 which are reproduced as under :- "18. Although, in view of my finding on issue No. 1, this issue has become redundant, yet, I have analysed the evidence of the parties. The statement of the petitioner is also supported by the earlier husband of the respondent, who has stated that he was contacted only in June, 1993, when he disclosed this fact to the relation of the petitioner. The same thing is repeated by the petitioner as well as his mother. The mother of the petitioner was cross examined at length, but during cross examination, she has stated that she did not go to Janakpuri in the first week of March, 1992, but she went there in the end of February, 1992. She has further stated that she met Mrs. Marwaha and had enquired about respondents previous marriage. She has admitted it to be correct that she came to know about her previous marriage from Mrs. Marwaha but she could not get the details about divorce. In this behalf, she has further stated that she again went to Janakpuri in January, 1993. 19. Marwaha and had enquired about respondents previous marriage. She has admitted it to be correct that she came to know about her previous marriage from Mrs. Marwaha but she could not get the details about divorce. In this behalf, she has further stated that she again went to Janakpuri in January, 1993. 19. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that these are the few lines in the cross examination and the statement is to be read as a whole, where it is the case of the petitioner that he came to know about the fact of previous marriage only in October, 1992, and could lay hands about the documents in June, 1993. The argument of the counsel is devoid of force. Once, this fact has been told in February, 1992, petitioner could very well send a notice to the respondent at that moment and could require her or her parents to reply to that notice. Because, as per the case of the petitioner himself, the respondent left the matrimonial house in February, 1992, without informing him. Thus, the factum of alleged fraud having come to the knowledge of the petitioner in February, 1992, the petition filed on 1st of October, 1993, is barred by limitation. This issue too, as such, is decided in favour of the respondent." 12. Resultantly, the petition under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act was dismissed. 13. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 22.2.1999, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant. 14. I have heard Mr. J.S. Bakhshi, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. I.K. Mehta, Senior Advocate, for the respondent and with their assistance I have gone through the record of the case. 15. Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act deals with voidable marriages. 14. I have heard Mr. J.S. Bakhshi, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. I.K. Mehta, Senior Advocate, for the respondent and with their assistance I have gone through the record of the case. 15. Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act deals with voidable marriages. It lays down that any marriage solemnized, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, shall be voidable and may be annulled by a decree of nullity on any of the following grounds, namely :- (a) that the marriage has not been consummated owing to the impotence of the respondent; or (b) that the marriage is in contravention of the condition specified in clause (ii) of Section 5; or (c) that the consent of the petitioner, or where the consent of the guardian in marriage of the petitioner (was required under Section 5 as it stood immediately before the commencement of the Child Marriage Restraint (Amendment) Act, 1978 (2 of 1978), the consent of such guardian was obtained by force (or by fraud as to the nature of the ceremony or as to any material fact or circumstance concerning the respondent);" 16. We have to see whether the consent of the appellant was obtained by force or by fraud. The case set up by the appellant is that he was never made aware at the time of marriage or before the marriage that respondent was married with one Sanjit Singh. He came to know about the marriage somewhere in the month of October, 1992, and his doubts were ultimately confirmed in June, 1993 when he met the first husband of the lady who handed over to him the copy of divorce obtained between him and the respondent under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act. Sub-section (2) of Section 12 of the Act further lays down that if the appellant wants to get the marriage declared voidable under Section 12, he must file the petition within one year from the date when the fraud has been discovered by him. The case set up by the appellant is that he discovered the fraud and got a slight hint about the first marriage of the respondent in October, 1992. The petition was filed within one year from the date of the discovery of the fraud, therefore, it is within limitation. 17. The case set up by the appellant is that he discovered the fraud and got a slight hint about the first marriage of the respondent in October, 1992. The petition was filed within one year from the date of the discovery of the fraud, therefore, it is within limitation. 17. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted that the father of the respondent never disclosed to the appellant or his mother about the earlier marriage of the respondent with Sanjit Singh. This factum of earlier marriage came to the notice of the appellant in the month of October, 1992. Doubts were confirmed in June, 1993, and the present petition has been filed within one year. There was a material concealment on the part of the respondent. Had this act been known to the appellant, he would have never married the respondent. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the appellant has taken me to the detailed evidence which was led by the parties in the trial Court. He pertinently referred to the statement of PW1 Dr. Parminder Charan (sic) anticipation of the divorce. The evidence has also come on record that the mother of the appellant was also sure that her son is likely to get divorce. Thus, the advertisement clearly shows that there was no indication that any divorce proceedings of the boy were pending in Germany. Impression is being given through this advertisement that the boy is a Bachelor, clean shaven who is settled in West Germany and wants a well educated girl who is in a position to move in the high society. In response to this advertisement on the same date, the letter had been written by the father of the girl. Original letter dated 14.5.1989 is not on the record but the carbon copy of the letter dated 14.5.1989 is on the record. There is a dispute about the genuineness of this carbon copy which I will try to resolve also in the subsequent portion of this judgment. A lot of criticism has been levelled about this letter. It is at page 345 of the file. Letter is written by Surinder Singh on behalf of the father of the respondent, House No. 240, Sector 35-A, Chandigarh, dated 14.5.1989. This is in response to advertisement given by the mother of the boy. A lot of criticism has been levelled about this letter. It is at page 345 of the file. Letter is written by Surinder Singh on behalf of the father of the respondent, House No. 240, Sector 35-A, Chandigarh, dated 14.5.1989. This is in response to advertisement given by the mother of the boy. In para 1 of the letter, he writes as follows : "My daughter is 23 years of age. She is quite tall, height is 167 cms. She is BA. She has done 1 year course in Commercial Art from Polytechnic College of Women, South Extn., New Delhi. She has also done 6 months course in computers. She is having white complexion. She has big eyes and very sharp features. In short, she is extremely pretty/beautiful. She is intelligent and can move in high society. However, she is innocent legally divorcee." 19. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that this carbon copy is a valid document. Is it so ? The answer of the Court is in the negative. "Men may lie but the documents not". Letter has also been written by the mother of the appellant subsequent to the letter dated 14.5.1989. On letter was written by the mother of the boy from Model Town, Delhi. It starts as follows: "SSA. Received your letter dated 14.5.1989, I am sending you the full particulars of my family below. My husband is a doctor, was on a reputed post of District Health Officer in Municipal Corporation. Unfortunately, he has expired. I have only 3 children. Eldest is my daughter who is M.A. (Maths), B. Ed. and is happily married. Her husband is Colonel in Indian Army. Next to her is my son for whom I am doing this correspondence. He is very handsome, tall and with very pleasant personality. He is a clean shaven Sikh. He is also legally divorcee". 20. The words "also" are of high significance. and is happily married. Her husband is Colonel in Indian Army. Next to her is my son for whom I am doing this correspondence. He is very handsome, tall and with very pleasant personality. He is a clean shaven Sikh. He is also legally divorcee". 20. The words "also" are of high significance. It signifies that the mother of the boy was made aware that girl was a divorcee and for the first time, from the side of the appellant, an information was also given to the family of the girl that the boy was also a legally divorced though it was not a fact that in the month of May, 1989, there was a valid divorce in favour of the boy from his previous wife because this divorce took place somewhere in August or September, 1989. Be that as it may, the mother of the boy came out with true colours about the particulars of her son when she stated in her letter dated 27.5.1989 that he is very handsome, tall and with very pleasant personality. He is a clean shaven Sikh. He is also legally divorced. The matrimonial talks started from the side of the appellant through his mother and it is not believable that the appellant did not know about the status of the girl. It is true that in the advertisement dated 14.5.1989, it was not mentioned by the appellant through his mother that divorcee will also do but it appears that when the family of the boy saw the girl who is really very beautiful, they became ready for this marriage because the family of the boy also knew that the boy is also likely to get divorce and that he is also previously married. There is one more glamouring circumstance which shows that there cannot be any concealment from the side of the respondent. The negotiation of marriage between the parties started in the month of May, 1989. It did not mature for months together. Every father has the anxiety that his daughter should be married as early as possible. A father does not depend upon one family. He sees many boys as a suitable match for his daughter similarly father of the boy also does not depend upon one family. It also sees many girls. It did not mature for months together. Every father has the anxiety that his daughter should be married as early as possible. A father does not depend upon one family. He sees many boys as a suitable match for his daughter similarly father of the boy also does not depend upon one family. It also sees many girls. On 16.7.1989, the family of the girl gave one matrimonial advertisement in Tribune, Chandigarh, which clearly spells out that they never wanted to conceal the fact that their daughter was a legally divorcee one. The contents of the advertisement are as follows : "Well placed suitable match for extremely beautiful Sikh girl 33/167 Diploma Computers innocent legally divorcee father Class Officer. Box 2934F, Tribune, Chandigarh." 21. Thus, there was hardly any occasion for Surinder Singh to fabricate the letter dated 14.5.1989, carbon copy of which is Exhibit RW1/2. In fact, the first copy of the letter dated 14.5.1989 which finds mention particularly of the mother, has been withheld. Letter dated 27.5.1989 clearly makes a reference of the letter dated 14.5.1989. Inspite of that notice was given for the production of the document which has not been produced. Therefore, I amnot inclined to draw the adverse inference against the appellant and hold that it was made aware to the family of the boy that the respondent was a legally divorced girl as is evident from the copy of the judgment dated 15.4.1989 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Delhi, who passed the decree of divorce under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act between Sanjit Singh and Harjit Kaur. 22. Now I would like to discuss two vital documents on which much reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the appellant. As it is the admitted case of the parties that marriage between the parties was solemnised on 28.1.1990. They submitted application before the Registrar of Marriage, Delhi, on 29.1.1990. Photostat copy of the application form is Exhibit PW6/1. Column 8 states as follows :- "Marital status-Husband-Divorcee Marital status-Wite-Unmarried girl." Harjit Kaur also gave an affidavit which is attested by an oath commissioner on 29.1.1990 in which she had stated that her marriage took place on 28.1.1990. She was unmarried and after this she had got married herself with Dr. Parminder Charan Singh. Column 8 states as follows :- "Marital status-Husband-Divorcee Marital status-Wite-Unmarried girl." Harjit Kaur also gave an affidavit which is attested by an oath commissioner on 29.1.1990 in which she had stated that her marriage took place on 28.1.1990. She was unmarried and after this she had got married herself with Dr. Parminder Charan Singh. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted that this is a material concealment on the part of the respondent. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that application was filed by the appellant and it is a proved case. Since the respondent was eager to accompany her husband to Germany, therefore, the respondent signed the form at the asking of her husband also she gave an affidavit which is factually incorrect. Having considered this submission, I am of the opinion that much capital cannot be made out of these documents. We all know that sometimes wrong information is given in the office of the Registrar of Marriages between the parties with regard to their earlier status of age etc. so as to register the marriages. At the most, it is an admission on the part of the respondent. It can become conclusive only if not successfully withdrawn. But in the present case, a wrong information was supplied in the office of the Registrar for the purposes of getting an earlier visa for the lady. In this case, the negotiations started somewhere in the month of May, 1989. The marriage was solemnised on 28.1.1990. It is not believable that for 7/8 months, the family of the boy was not made aware about the earlier status of the girl. 23. In this view of the matter, I endorse the findings of the trial Court on issue No. 1 and decide this issue against the appellant and in favour of the respondent. 24. With regard to issue No. 2, the case set up by the appellant is that he came to know about the first marriage of the respondent somewhere in the month of October, 1992. He became sure in July, 1993, and thereafter, he did not waste the time and the petition was filed in October, 1993. The stand of the appellant is again false to the ground. He became sure in July, 1993, and thereafter, he did not waste the time and the petition was filed in October, 1993. The stand of the appellant is again false to the ground. The mother of the appellant appeared in the witness box and in cross examination, she stated that she did not go to Janakpuri in the first week of March, 1992, but went there in the end of February. She further stated that she met Mrs. Marwaha and had enquired about the respondents first marriage. Then she came to know about the previous marriage but she could not get the details about divorce. In this behalf, she has further stated that she again went to Janakpuri in July, 1993. Thus, it is evident even from the statement of the mother of the boy that it was to her notice in the month of February, 1992, about the first marriage of the respondent. In my opinion, it is not factually correct, rather the family of the boy was made known right in the year 1989 that respondent was earlier married with the Sanjit Singh. The body had also a rough marriage with his first wife and, therefore, he readily accepted the respondent as second wife, who as a divorcee. Even otherwise, the best witness who supplied information to the mother of the boy about the alleged first marriage has not been produced. According to Smt. Bhatia, she came to know for the first time about the previous marriage of the respondent from one property broker who came to his house and gave a hint that respondent was married previously. That witness has not been produced. In this view of the matter, I am of the opinion that issue No. 2 is also rightly decided against the appellant by the trial Court. 25. Learned counsel for the appellant has referred to Smt. Bindu Sharma and another v. Ram Parkash Sharma and another, 1997(1) DMC 631, Brijinder Bir Singh v. Vinod @ Parminder,1995(1) DMC 334 and Anurag Anand v. Sunita Anand, 1996(2) DMC 389 and submitted that there is a material concealment of material facts with regard to the first marriage by the respondent. All these judgments are not applicable. I had already tried to show from this judgment that everything was made aware to the appellant and to his family members. All these judgments are not applicable. I had already tried to show from this judgment that everything was made aware to the appellant and to his family members. There was no fraud or deceit played by the respondent or by her father. 26. In these circumstances, these judgments are not helpful to the appellant. Resultantly, this appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.