JUDGMENT Heard Mr. D'Costa, learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant and Mr. Usgaonkar, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. Admit on the following substantial questions of law: (i) Whether in a suit for annulment of marriage on the ground of coercion it is mandatory to examine the person who has exercised coercion? (ii) Whether the District Court committed an error in law in reversing the judgment and decree of the trial Court by just taking a different view of the matter? 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent waives service of notice after admission. By consent of the learned counsel for the parties, heard forthwith. 4. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 14/1/2012 passed by the Learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Panaji, in Matrimonial Petition No.16/2009/A. 5. The said Matrimonial Petition was filed by the respondent against the appellant, herein. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the manner in which they are designated in the said Matrimonial petition. 6. The plaintiff had filed the said Matrimonial Petition, under Articles 18 and 21 of the Law of marriage/Family Laws as applicable to the State of Goa, for declaration that her civil marriage with the defendant is null and void and for consequent direction to the Registrar of marriages to cancel the registration. 7. Case of the plaintiff, in short, is as follows: Marriage of the plaintiff with the defendant has been registered before the Civil Registrar of Tiswadi at Panaji on 25/2/2009 under entry no.153/2009 and that the marriage has been forced upon her. The plaintiff, who at the relevant time was a student of Diploma in Electronics Engineering, initially had a liking for the defendant but over a period of time she realized that they were not compatible. However, the plaintiff's mother was adamant in getting her married to the defendant and the mother forced the plaintiff to go through the procedure of marriage by threatening that if the plaintiff did not marry the defendant, then she would do something for which the plaintiff would always regret. The plaintiff understood that her mother was threatening her to put an end to her life. She tried to postpone by saying that she was a student but the mother stated that even after marriage she could study. The plaintiff understood that her mother was threatening her to put an end to her life. She tried to postpone by saying that she was a student but the mother stated that even after marriage she could study. The plaintiff found that her parents were depressed and more particularly the mother and fearing that her mother could indulge in some dangerous act to herself, went reluctantly and against her will through the procedure of marriage with the defendant. After the civil marriage also, the plaintiff continued to stay in the house of her parents, but could not come to terms with the idea of accepting the defendant as her husband and could not concentrate on her studies, due to which her parents finally relented and told her that they would not force her to get religiously married to the defendant and that she was free to take any steps to undo the civil marriage. Hence, the suit. 8. Case of the defendant, in short, was that the petition is filed to mislead the Court and to circumvent the true facts. The defendant and the plaintiff are in love for last 8 years and that the parents of the plaintiff dislike the defendant and are trying to separate the plaintiff and the defendant from each other. The petition is filed at the behest of the parents of the plaintiff. The defendant works on the ship. In March 2009 when the defendant was to return back to his job, the plaintiff confided in him and told him about her fear that her parents would get her married to someone else. Therefore, they decided to get married and accordingly got married on 25/2/2009 and then on the same day, they informed parents of each other and also had a party. Thereafter, the plaintiff started residing in the house of the defendant. However, the parents of the plaintiff were furious. In the meantime, the defendant left for ship on 27/2/2009 and the church marriage was agreed to be fixed in December 2009. 9. Following issues were framed by the trial Court: (1) Whether plaintiff proves that she went through the process of marriage under coercion? (2) Whether the respondent prove that marriage was with free consent of the plaintiff? (3) Whether the respondent prove that the plaintiff's parents were trying to separate plaintiff and the defendant? (4) What relief? What Order? 10. 9. Following issues were framed by the trial Court: (1) Whether plaintiff proves that she went through the process of marriage under coercion? (2) Whether the respondent prove that marriage was with free consent of the plaintiff? (3) Whether the respondent prove that the plaintiff's parents were trying to separate plaintiff and the defendant? (4) What relief? What Order? 10. In the course of evidence before the trial court, the plaintiff examined herself as PW-1 and her father, Shri Manual Jose Caitano Fernandes as PW-2. The defendant then examined himself as DW1 and four witnesses, namely, Nerry Fernandes as DW2, Miguel Lopes as DW-4, Wilbur Fernandes as DW-5 and Mauricio Fernandes as DW-6. The witness, namely, Danzil Fernandes, who was examined as DW-3 was not available for cross examination since he went abroad. Therefore, his Affidavit-in-Evidence was discarded. 11. Upon consideration of the entire evidence on record and the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the parties, the trial Court held that the plaintiff had proved that she went through the process of marriage under coercion and that her marriage was not with her own free consent. According to the trial Court, the defendant could not prove that the plaintiff's parents were trying to separate the plaintiff and the defendant. Thus, the suit came to be decreed. The first issue was answered in the affirmative whereas the next two issues were answered in the negative. The marriage between the plaintiff and the defendant registered under entry no.153/2009 came to be declared as null and void and the Registrar of Marriages was directed to cancel the registration of marriage. 12. The defendant, aggrieved by the judgment of the trial Court, filed Regular Civil Appeal No.26/2012. The learned First appellate court formulated the following points for determination: (1) Whether the consent of the petitioner for marriage with the respondent was caused by coercion? (2) Whether the impugned judgment, order and decree calls for interference? By impugned judgment and decree dated 14/09/2012, the First Appellate court answered the first point in the negative and the second point in the affirmative. The judgment and decree of the trial Court has been quashed and set aside by the learned First Appellate court and the Matrimonial Petition has been dismissed. Therefore, the plaintiff has filed the present Second Appeal. 13. The judgment and decree of the trial Court has been quashed and set aside by the learned First Appellate court and the Matrimonial Petition has been dismissed. Therefore, the plaintiff has filed the present Second Appeal. 13. I have gone through the entire material on record and I have also considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the parties. 14. The evidence of PW-1, who is the plaintiff, sufficiently proves that she was not willing to get married with the defendant but since her mother had threatened that she would do something to herself for which the plaintiff would always regret which the plaintiff understood as warning that the mother would put an end to her own life, she took a decision unwillingly and against her own will, to go through the procedure of marriage. In her Affidavit-in-Evidence, the plaintiff stated all the facts which were pleaded by her in the plaint. She has thoroughly explained as to under what circumstances she went through the process of marriage against her own free consent, since she had understood that her refusal to accept the proposal of marriage with the defendant would make her mother unhappy. The plaintiff was convinced that not only the mother would become unhappy, but would even commit suicide if she does not marry the defendant. The evidence of the plaintiff reveals that her mother was convinced that the defendant is a good boy, earning a lot, being a shipper. According to PW-1, her mother had specifically told her that the attitude of PW-1 could lead her to do something for which the plaintiff would always regret. Being the daughter, the conduct of the plaintiff cannot be faulted for consenting to the marriage not of her free will but reluctantly, in order to make her mother happy, who thinking good about future of her daughter was forcing her to get married to the defendant. A perusal of the cross-examination of PW-1 would reveal that the evidence of PW-1 about her being forced to get married, in the manner as above, is not shaken. 15. The learned trial Court has been rightly satisfied with the evidence produced by the plaintiff and her father. A perusal of the cross-examination of PW-1 would reveal that the evidence of PW-1 about her being forced to get married, in the manner as above, is not shaken. 15. The learned trial Court has been rightly satisfied with the evidence produced by the plaintiff and her father. However, the learned First Appellate Court has refused to rely upon the said evidence on the ground that the claim of the plaintiff is not supported by her mother in the course of evidence. No doubt, if the mother was examined and had corroborated the version of the plaintiff, that would have added to the strength of the plaintiff's case. However, there is no law which mandates examination of particular persons by the plaintiff to prove his or her case. It is true that as per the case of the plaintiff, the mother of the plaintiff had exercised coercion. Therefore, the First Appellate Court was right in observing that the evidence of mother would have been a material piece of evidence. But a mother cannot be expected to be called, by her loving daughter who sacrificed her own happiness, to come before the Court and admit that the life of her daughter was in ruins due to her wish and that it was her adamant wish that her daughter should get married to defendant only. Therefore, in my considered view no adverse inference can be drawn, in the peculiar facts of the case, for non-examination of the mother of the plaintiff. If the plaintiff is able to prove the said fact by other cogent evidence, then the non-examination of the mother would not be fatal. 16. In the present case, the plaintiff examined her father as PW-2. The learned First Appellate court appears to have considered only the negative evidence of PW-2 and has left out the positive evidence which supports the plaintiff's case. PW-2 has stated that after his wife told him that the defendant was working on the ship, both he and his wife decided that the defendant would be a good match for their daughter. PW-2 has stated that his wife thereafter told him that daughter does not want to get married to the defendant. PW-2 has specifically stated that he talked to the plaintiff about the matter and realized that she did not want to marry the defendant. PW-2 has stated that his wife thereafter told him that daughter does not want to get married to the defendant. PW-2 has specifically stated that he talked to the plaintiff about the matter and realized that she did not want to marry the defendant. He has stated that he told his wife that it would be better to wait till their daughter completes her studies but his wife was of the opinion that the boy would marry some one else and then they would have to search someone else and there was no guarantee that they would get such a good boy. According to PW-2, his wife told him that she would convince their daughter. However, PW-2 has added that their daughter was refusing to accept the idea. It is in his absence that the mother told the plaintiff that if she did not agree to marriage then something would happen to her for which the plaintiff would always regret. He has stated that the plaintiff understood that her mother may cause harm to herself and end her life. In these circumstances, according to PW-2, in order to avoid calamity in the family, the plaintiff agreed. PW-2 has specifically stated that the plaintiff was thus forced to marry the defendant. Merely because the mother of the plaintiff had not done any harm to her life at any time before and because the parents of the plaintiff had never inquired with the defendant about his earnings and because allegedly there was no one present from the family of the plaintiff including her parents at the time of civil marriage, the learned First Appellate Court has refused to rely upon the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2. A reasonable comparison of the evidence of the plaintiff and her father with that of the defendant and his witnesses who are also interested witnesses, I am of the view that the plaintiff's case cannot be disbelieved. 17. Article 18 of the Law of Marriages, as applicable to Goa, provides that the marriage to which consent is proved to have been caused by mistake or coercion is voidable. 17. Article 18 of the Law of Marriages, as applicable to Goa, provides that the marriage to which consent is proved to have been caused by mistake or coercion is voidable. Article 21 provides that for the purpose of Article 18, coercion consists of a threat of a serious and imminent danger to the life or to the honour of the coerced person or to that of his relatives by lineal consanguinity or upto the fourth degree in a collateral line. There is no doubt that a threat to commit suicide amounts to coercion. In the present case, there is sufficient evidence to establish that there was threat from the mother of the plaintiff with a view to obtain consent of the plaintiff for marriage with the defendant, though the intention of the mother was to get a good son-in-law. However, she did not take into account the liking of her daughter, due to which the consent given by the plaintiff cannot be said to be free consent, but by coercion. 18. After receiving the notice of this Second Appeal, the defendant filed an application stating that he has no objection to allow the Second Appeal and for setting aside the judgment and order of the District Court and for restoration of the judgment and decree of the trial Court granting annulment of his marriage with the plaintiff. From this conduct of the defendant, it can otherwise be understood that the martial tie between the plaintiff and the defendant has broken to such an extent that it has become irretrievable. In such circumstances continuing with the marriage only on paper will not be good for any of the parties. Be that as it may, in my considered view, the learned First Appellate Court has committed gross error in law in reversing the judgment and decree of the Trial Court which was otherwise passed on correct appreciation of the evidence on record. 19. The substantial questions involved in the present appeal are therefore answered in favour of the plaintiff. 20. In the result, the appeal is allowed. a) The impugned judgment, order and decree dated 14/9/2012 passed by the First Appellate Court in Regular Civil Appeal No. 26/2012 is quashed and set aside. b) The judgment, order and decree dated 4/1/2012 passed by the trial Court in Matrimonial Petition No.16/2009/A is restored back. Accordingly, the said Matrimonial Petition is allowed. In the result, the appeal is allowed. a) The impugned judgment, order and decree dated 14/9/2012 passed by the First Appellate Court in Regular Civil Appeal No. 26/2012 is quashed and set aside. b) The judgment, order and decree dated 4/1/2012 passed by the trial Court in Matrimonial Petition No.16/2009/A is restored back. Accordingly, the said Matrimonial Petition is allowed. The marriage between the plaintiff and the defendant registered against entry no.153/2009 is declared as null and void. The Registrar of Marriages shall cancel the said registration of marriage. c) A Decree shall be drawn accordingly. 21. Appeal stands disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.