JUDGMENT Vinod K. Sharma, J (Oral).:- The appellant-wife has challenged the judgment and decree dated 10.8.2006, passed by the learned Additional District, Judge, Fatehabad, vide which the petition filed by the appellant-wife, for dissolution of marriage by way of decree of divorce, has been ordered to be dismissed. 2. The appellant-wife sought a decree of divorce, on the pleadings, that the marriage between the parties was solemnised on 16.1.2002 at village Jandli Khurd, Tehsil and District Fatehabad. It was pleaded, that the appellant visited the village Mothsara only on the date of marriage, and that the marriage was not consummated, so no issue was born out of this wedlock. It was the case of the appellant, that on the date of marriage, the age of the appellant was about 13 years, so she was unable to under the real meaning of marriage. The stand was also taken, that she had not consented for marriage till date. She also claimed, that after attaining the age of 15 years she had repudiated the marriage before attaining the age of 18 years, and communicated her desire through her father, that she has not approved the marriage. This communication was said to have been sent in the month of August, 2004. It was also the case of the appellant-wife, that on the first day of marriage, she realised that the atmosphere of matrimonial home was not congenial to her health and that the behaviour of the respondent-husband and his family members was not upto the mark. It was alleged, that the respondent was not satisfied with the dowry articles given by her parents. 3. On notice, the petition was contested, wherein number of preliminary objections, like maintainability, cause of action etc., were taken. It was also pleaded by the respondent-husband, that the appellant is under the influence of his father, who was not willing to allow the appellant-wife to live with him. The father of the appellant was said to be greedy person and wanted her to do labour work and to enjoy her earnings. The respondent-husband showed his willingness to maintain the appellant-wife with his meager income from labour work. The father of the appellant was said to be greedy person and wanted her to do labour work and to enjoy her earnings. The respondent-husband showed his willingness to maintain the appellant-wife with his meager income from labour work. Stand taken was, that in the month of June, 2004, the father of the appellantwife had taken her on the pretext of meeting with paternal family, on the assurance that she would come back after a week, but she was not sent back as per promise. The respondent-husband visited her in-law’s house, to bring back the appellant-wife, but father of the appellant-wife flatly refused to allow the appellant to accompany him. It was also the case of the respondent-husband, that all his efforts to bring back the appellantwife failed. It was further the case of the respondent-husband, that the appellant lived with the respondent as his wife, and the marriage was consummated, though no child was born out of this wedlock. Other allegations regarding the atmosphere of the respondent’s house and of demand of dowry were specifically denied. 4. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned Matrimonial Court framed the following issues: - “1. Whether the petitioner was married with the respondent at the age or 13 years and she has already repudiated the marriage after attaining the age of 15 years before attaining the age of 18 years? OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, whether the petitioner is entitled for decree of divorce? OPP 3. Whether the petitioner has no cause of action and ground to file this petition, if so, its effect? OPR. 4. Relief.” 5. In support of the case, the appellant herself appeared in the witness box as PW-1 and examined her father Partap as PW-2, whereas Ram Kumar was examined as PW-3. Documentary evidence was also tendered in evidence. 6. The respondent-husband, on the other hand, examined Harish Chander, an official from the office of the Civil Surgeon, as RW-1, Ramji Lal as RW-2, Shri Chand as RW-3, Constable Ramesh Kumar as RW-4, and he himself appeared as RW-5. Documentary evidence was also tendered by the respondent. 7. Documentary evidence was also tendered in evidence. 6. The respondent-husband, on the other hand, examined Harish Chander, an official from the office of the Civil Surgeon, as RW-1, Ramji Lal as RW-2, Shri Chand as RW-3, Constable Ramesh Kumar as RW-4, and he himself appeared as RW-5. Documentary evidence was also tendered by the respondent. 7. The learned Matrimonial Court, on appreciation of evidence, held, that the appellant had failed to prove her date of birth to be 18.8.1989, for the reason, that Harish Chander, examined as RW-1, had stated on oath, on basis of the record, that the date of birth of Suresh Kumar was April, 1989, who was stated to be elder brother of the appellant and, therefore, stated that her date of birth could not be 18.8.2009, as the gap was of only four months. 8. In view of the statement of RW-1, the appellant-wife moved an application before the learned Matrimonial Court to get her ossification test done. The learned Matrimonial Court without considering the fact, that the ossification test was very much necessary to determine the age of the appellant-wife, and that it was the only issue involved in the case, dismissed the application. 9. The application moved by the appellant under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure stands allowed by this Court and the ossification test conducted on 1.6.2006 has been taken on record as Ex. ‘C’. 10. The learned Matrimonial Court held, that as the school leaving certificate produced by the appellant, in proof of her age was doubtful, and did not depict the correct date of birth. It was, therefore, held to be a case of no evidence. The petition was dismissed, by holding, that the appellant had failed to prove her age to be less than 15 years on the date of marriage. 11. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant challenged the judgment and decree passed by the learned Matrimonial Court primarily on the ground, that the judgment and decree on the face of it is perverse. 11. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant challenged the judgment and decree passed by the learned Matrimonial Court primarily on the ground, that the judgment and decree on the face of it is perverse. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is, that though the authenticity of school leaving certificate can be doubted, but in absence of any other evidence to the contrary, the validity of the certificate could not be doubted because certificate of Suresh Kumar, without establishing the fact that Suresh Kumar was the brother of the appellant. Furthermore, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is, that in any case, as per Ex. ‘C’ taken on record today, it is proved beyond doubt, that the age of the appellant on the date of ossification test was less than 18 years and more than 17 years. Furthermore, there is no evidence on record to show the relationship of Suresh Kumar with the appellant. The learned appellate Court merely presumed, that the date of birth of the appellant could not be 18.8.1989. 12. If the reasoning given by the learned Matrimonial Court was to be accepted, in that event also the age of the appellant would less than the one projected in the school leaving certificate, as admittedly Suresh Kumar was alleged to be her elder brother, who was born in April, 1989. 13. It is not disputed even by the respondent, that appellant is younger sister of Suresh Kumar. The evidence on record by way of school leaving certificate coupled with the fact that Ex. ‘C’ show the age of the appellant to be less than 18 years on 1.6.2006. It can safely be presumed, that the marriage of the appellant was performed before she attained the age of 15 years, and she having repudiated the marriage before attaining the age of 18 years, was entitled to decree of divorce under Section 13(2)(iv), which reads as under: - “13. Divorce. It can safely be presumed, that the marriage of the appellant was performed before she attained the age of 15 years, and she having repudiated the marriage before attaining the age of 18 years, was entitled to decree of divorce under Section 13(2)(iv), which reads as under: - “13. Divorce. - (1) x x x x x (2) A wife may also present a petition for the dissolution of her marriage by a decree of divorce on the ground, - (i) x x x x (ii) x x x x (iii) x x x x (iv) that her marriage (whether consummated or not) was solemnised before she attained the age of fifteen years and she was repudiated the marriage after attaining that age but before attaining the age of eighteen years.” 14. The learned counsel for the respondent vehemently contended, that the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court deserves to be upheld, as it was for the appellant to prove her age to be less than 15 years on the date of marriage. 15. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent was, that once it was proved on record, that school leaving certificate did not depict the correct date of birth, then no reliance could be placed on it, to hold her date of birth to be 18.8.1989. There is no evidence to support the assertion of the appellant, that she was less than 15 years of age on the date of marriage and, therefore, she was not entitled to decree of divorce. 16. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the respondent, that it is well settled law that the appellant/petitioner was to stand on her own legs, and could not taken advantage of the weakness of the evidence of the respondent, in not proving that Suresh Kumar was the brother of the appellant-wife. 17. It was further contended by the learned counsel for the respondent, that the certificate Ex. ‘C’ shows her age to be less than 18 years and more than 17 years, and if margin of error in ossification test is taken into consideration, it cannot be positively said that she was less than 15 years of age on the date of marriage, therefore, no ground is made out to interfere with the judgment and decree passed by the learned Matrimonial Court. 18. 18. On consideration, I find no force in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the respondent. The school leaving certificate is normally taken to depict date of birth certificate. Though it is not always taken to be an authenticated proof of date of birth but in order dis-prove the certificate, the evidence is required to be led, like date of birth certificate for birth register. In absence of any evidence to the contrary, the Court should normally accept the date of birth in the school leaving certificate to be the correct date of birth. The school certificate could not be rejected on the basis of presumption, as held by the learned Matrimonial Court by taking into consideration the age of the brother of the appellant, though the relationship between Suresh Kumar and the appellant was not proved. Even otherwise appellant is admittedly younger sister of Suresh Kumar, and in view of certificate of Suresh Kumar, she was even younger than depicted in school leaving certificate. 19. In any case, as already observed above, if there was any doubt about the age of the appellant, that stands clarified by Ex. ‘C’, i.e. Ossification test. The evidence on record, therefore, leaves no manner of doubt, that the age of appellant, on the date of marriage, was less than 15 years and that she repudiated the marriage before attaining the age of 18 years. She was, therefore, entitled to decree of divorce, under Section 13 (2)(iv) of the Hindu Marriage Act. 20. For the reasons stated, appeal is allowed, the judgment and decree passed by the learned Matrimonial Court is set aside. The petition filed by the appellant-wife is allowed and decree of divorce is passed in favour of appellant, but with no order as to costs. ——————