JUDGMENT S. PANDA, J. — Being aggrieved by order dated 9.12.1998 passed by the learned District Judge, Bhubaneswar in O.S. No.10/1 of 1997, the appellant has filed this First Appeal under Section 39 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 (in short “the Act”). 2. The appellant as petitioner filed a petition under Section 25 of the Act before the learned District Judge, Khurda at Bhubaneswar, for a declaration that the deemed marriage said to have been solemnized on 18.12.1995 is null and void. The petitioner factually stated that while undergoing her Graduation study at Ramadevi Women’s College, Bhubaneswar, she met the respondent who introduced himself as a friend of her cousin brother. Sometimes in the early part of 1995, respondent tried to be close with the petitioner-appellant and he gave an impression that he was a Post Graduate student and comes from a good family. Thereafter the respondent somehow by threatening her obtained signatures from the appellant in blank papers. Suddenly on 18.12.1995, while she was proceeding to board a bus, she was physically lifted by the respondent along with his three associ¬ates into a Taxi and they forced her to keep mum at the point of a dagger. She was also threatened that unless she acted accord¬ing to the desire of the respondent, they would black-mail her. They took her to the Office of the Sub-Registrar, Bhubaneswar where she was forced to sign in some papers inside the car with¬out knowing the contents thereof and some time later she was made to appear before the Sub-Registrar and sign papers there at the behest of the respondent and at that time she could know that they had taken her signatures in a marriage form and she was not a free consenting party to the said document which was obtained by the respondent by using coercion. She further stated that her tacit consent might be inferred from the fact of the representa¬tion made by the respondent as to his social status, qualifica¬tion and future prospect. He also told her not to be panic about the registration of the marriage. He assured her that the regis¬tration might be cancelled at any time if her parents disproved their marriage. He also promised that he would give proposal to her parents and only after taking their consent he would marry her and till that date, he would not disturb her. He assured her that the regis¬tration might be cancelled at any time if her parents disproved their marriage. He also promised that he would give proposal to her parents and only after taking their consent he would marry her and till that date, he would not disturb her. During the period from August to December, 1996, the petitioner requested the respondent to cancel the deed of marriage but he misbehaved her on some occasions and finally in the month of December de¬clined to execute the cancellation. Thus, the petitioner decided to break the silence by narrating the whole facts before her parents as to how the marriage certificate was obtained. As the respondent, who was a Matriculate and had no means of sustenance misrepresented and deceived her deliberately and did not take any step to cancel the marriage, she filed the petition before the learned District Judge with the aforesaid prayer. 3. The respondent after receiving the notice, filed his written statement denying the allegation of fraud and coercion in solemnization of the marriage between him and the petitioner. He further stated that the petitioner decided to live with him as his wife but after the marriage the father of the petitioner took away her from the matrimonial home. Thereafter, she filed the petitioner on the above pleadings. Therefore, the prayer should be rejected. The learned District Judge on the above pleadings formulated as many as nine issues which are as follows; “1. Is the suit maintainable ? 2. Is the suit barred by law of limitation ? 3. Is there any cause of action for the suit ? 4. Is there any valid marriage between the parties under the Special Marriage Act, 1954 ? 5. Whether the marriage certificate has been obtained by fraud and misrepresentation ? 6. Whether the respondent by adopting fraudulent means took the consent, if any, of the petitioner in the marriage ? 7. Whether the petitioner was coerced and threatened and her signature was taken in blank forms at the point of dagger ? 8. Whether the marriage between the petitioner and the re¬spondent is void ? 9. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the relief claimed ?” 4. In support of their respective cases, the parties adduced oral as well as documentary evidences. 5. 8. Whether the marriage between the petitioner and the re¬spondent is void ? 9. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the relief claimed ?” 4. In support of their respective cases, the parties adduced oral as well as documentary evidences. 5. On the above issues and the evidences adduced by the parties, the learned District Judge arrived at the following conclusions; There was a valid marriage between the appellant-petitioner and the respondent-opposite party under the provision of the Special Marriage Act. The certificate was not obtained by fraud or misrepresentation. No fraudulent act was exercised by the respondent in obtaining the consent of marriage from the peti¬tioner and the petitioner was not threatened to put her signature in the blank form. So far as the question of limitation is concerned, the learned District Judge held that the suit is barred by law of limitation as it was to be filed within one year from the date of solemnization of the marriage which took place on 18.12.1995 but the suit was filed on 21st March, 1997. On the above findings, the learned District Judge dismissed the suit. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-appellant submitted that the petitioner was a good student having bright career and the respondent, who was a Matriculate, misrep¬resenting her that he was a Post-Graduate student and comes from a good family developed relationship with her. He threatened the petitioner to put her signature in the application for registra¬tion of marriage under the Act. He further submitted that taking advantage of the helplessness of the petitioner, the respondent did this high handed act at the point of a dagger. The petitioner when realized the misrepresentation and the high handedness of the respondent, she filed a petition for annulment of the said mar¬riage on the ground of fraud and coercion since the petitioner-appellant discovered the said fraud on 30.12.1996 and 1.1.1997 is the date of cessation of coercion. Thus, the proceeding was within time and was not barred by law of limitation. As the petitioner specifically pleaded and proved the misrepresentation and fraud and that the alleged marriage was tainted with coer¬cion, the Court below should have considered the proved facts which have been illegally discarded by it and hence the conclu¬sion arrived at by it needs to be set aside by this Court. As the petitioner specifically pleaded and proved the misrepresentation and fraud and that the alleged marriage was tainted with coer¬cion, the Court below should have considered the proved facts which have been illegally discarded by it and hence the conclu¬sion arrived at by it needs to be set aside by this Court. He further submitted that since the provisions of Sections 5, 6, 7(2), 11 and 12 of the Act have not been complied with, the Court below should have allowed the petition and there was absolutely no materials available before the Court below that both the parties complied with Section 12(2) of the Act before solemniza¬tion of the marriage by accepting and acknowledging each other as husband and wife and the marriage officer, who has been examined as D.W.4, has also not stated on oath about any such receipt of notice as contemplated under Section 5 of the Act. Since no evidence was available regarding the publication of notice and solemnization of marriage, grant of certificate to the effect should not been believed by the Court below and it should have decreed the petition filed by the appellant by annulling the marriage. The learned counsel for the respondent, however, sup¬ported the judgment of the Court below. 7. On the submission of both the parties and going through the evidence on records, it appears that the appellant petitioner has discharged her initial onus by specifically pleading the fraud and misrepresentation. She was proved the same on oath. The Court below has acted illegally by not accepting the same in absence of any rebuttal evidence adduced by the respondent. The oral evidence adduced by the respondent does not inspire confi¬dence. Since from the date of the registration of marriage till filing of the petition, at no point of time both the parties resided or stayed as husband and wife. The Court below has not considered the said aspect of the present case in its proper perspective and has rejected the petition to declare the marriage as null and void. The appeal was filed before this Court in the year 1999. The evidence on record reveals that the parties have not stayed a single day as husband and wife and their marriage has not been accepted by the society. The appeal was filed before this Court in the year 1999. The evidence on record reveals that the parties have not stayed a single day as husband and wife and their marriage has not been accepted by the society. The conduct of the parties during the period from 1995 to 1999 shows that the marriage has not been consummated for a single day from the date of marriage and it was irretrievably broken down. The aforesaid facts probabalise the version of the appellant and not that of the respond¬ent. In the case of Smt. Jolly Das @ Moulick v. Tapan Ranjan Das reported in 1994 (II) CCC 131, the Supreme Court has held that declaration of marriage as nullity was proper as no reason was assigned why marriage was not consummated for a period of two years after marriage and why they did not live together as hus¬band and wife after the marriage. 8. The circumstances show that the appellant was of tender age of 18 years and the respondent was a grown up man and proba¬bly he might have taken advantage of her innocence, inexperience and tender age. He might have also obtained her signature on the application for registration of marriage without fully apprising her the contents thereof by making fraudulent misrepresentation. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the judgment and decree dated 9.12.1998 and 2.1.1999 respectively passed by the learned District Judge, Khurda in O.S. No. 10/1 of 1997 is set aside and the appeal is allowed. The so-called mar¬riage dated 30.12.1996 and the certificate issued in respect thereof is cancelled herewith. There shall be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.