Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 971 (PNJ)

Satpal v. Mamta

2018-02-22

GURVINDER SINGH GILL, M.M.SINGH BEDI

body2018
JUDGMENT : M.M. SINGH BEDI, J. 1. The present case is a tale of a man who claiming himself to be a staunch follower of God Hanuman with divine powers comes into contact with the family of a girl with power to heal all kinds of pains and sufferings and by misusing his influence, taking advantage of his fiduciary relationship makes an innocent girl to fall in his trap to dissuade her from her relationship with a man of her liking and age and adopts immoral and fraudulent tricks taking advantage of the feeble and innocent mind of a girl under depression; exploits his fiduciary status of a Godman; indulges in unreasonable exploitation affecting not only the life of the innocent girl but to spoil the same by forcing the relationship of husband and wife by imposing the relationship developed by act of fraud and undue influence. An attempt by the respondent to get out of the trap has been strongly resisted by the appellant by making all out efforts to sustain the relationship in a clandestine manner. 2. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment and decree dated 16.9.2017, passed by Ms. Aaradhna Sawhney, Additional District Judge, Chandigarh, by virtue of which the petition filed by the respondent under Section 12(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act, has been allowed. 3. Respondent Mamta, aged about 23 years, filed a petition for nullity of the marriage pleading that she got married to the appellant on 23.1.2015, as per Hindu Rites at Chandigarh, in presence of a priest Sh. Amar Lal. The appellant had started visiting the house of the respondent in the year 2010 claiming himself to be a healer having divine powers being staunch follower of God Hanuman. The family of the respondent came in contact with him through the brother of father of the respondent who further came in contact through one of his relations who had bestowed utmost faith in the appellant and his healing powers as per the tradition in the country of people having faith in Godman and Bhagats and treated the appellant like a Godman Hanuman having diving powers to heal all kinds of problems including physical pain and sufferings. The appellant used to give sermons to the gathering at various places. The appellant used to give sermons to the gathering at various places. Though the appellant was resident of Haryana, but he used to visit Chandigarh, often giving prior intimation to all the relatives of respondent's family and on account of his said influence, he came closer to the family of the respondent. He would accompany the family of the respondent to various religious places like Mansa Devi and Mata Vaishno Devi shrine and used to attend the functions in the family. He used to address the respondent as 'Beti' and she would discuss all the personal matters like her fears, her studies, her dreams and future and professional career. Respondent was also in contact with one Sandeep Sharma her class fellow in one Institute namely Gynam, Sector 34, Chandigarh, where she was taking coaching for competitive exams for competing in her BCA. The said classmate of the respondent became her friend. They used to share study materials as well as personal thoughts. The respondent disclosed all the facts regarding her liking for Sandeep Sharma to the appellant but the appellant objected to said feelings and friendship on the ground that it is not acceptable in the Indian Society. The appellant insisted that her friendship with Sandeep Sharma would lead her to destruction and loss of her reputation and dignity. The appellant had taken mobile number of Sandeep Sharma on the pretext that he would try to ascertain his character and reputation. The appellant visited the house of the respondent and disclosed about Sandeep Sharma having not good character and being guilty of soliciting the innocent girls and using them for ulterior motives. The appellant claimed that he had enquired about the said boy from his native village at Village and Post Office, Dhakal, Tehsil Narwana, District Jind and he had done the similar mischief by making MMS of some girls and then blackmailing them for ulterior motives. The respondent was shocked to hear said claims of the appellant and as she has immense faith in the appellant, she readily accepted the same and promised not to keep any contact with Sandeep Sharma. However, after few days, the appellant again visited the house of the respondent and revealed a shocking fact that Sandeep Sharma had already made a video wherein she had been found in a compromising position with him and was ready to blackmail her. However, after few days, the appellant again visited the house of the respondent and revealed a shocking fact that Sandeep Sharma had already made a video wherein she had been found in a compromising position with him and was ready to blackmail her. The respondent told the appellant that she had never indulged in any kind of physical relationship, as such question of video recording does not arise. Appellant insisted that there was possibility that Sandeep Sharma might have taken photographs from his mobile and then used the same to make fake video recording in order to blackmail her and warned the respondent against Sandeep Sharma. Although the respondent had not indulged in any physical intimacy with Sandeep Sharma but still she fell in the trap of appellant under the under blind belief as she considered that the appellant could not lie being a Godman. Persuaded by the false representations of the appellant, the respondent went into extreme depression and lost control over her mind and sense of rational thinking and completely surrendered herself before the appellant and pleaded to get her out of that situation. Respondent disconnected herself from Sandeep Sharma and started remaining in extreme depression and tension throughout the day. The respondent was very much attached with her family and had shared every sorrow and happiness with them but she cold not share the incident on the warning given by the appellant. She had thought of committing suicide. Under the said thought, the respondent approached the appellant for committing suicide in order to save the honour of the family. At that point of time, the appellant again represented himself to be a saviour being a Godman and told the respondent to surrender herself to him so that he can make a very easy and safe path for her to get out of said situation. The appellant told her that it would be best for her to get married with him and then to ran away to some undisclosed place and then allow her to commit suicide so that the family of the respondent would remain under impression that she was living happily at her matrimonial home. The appellant told her that it would be best for her to get married with him and then to ran away to some undisclosed place and then allow her to commit suicide so that the family of the respondent would remain under impression that she was living happily at her matrimonial home. The appellant justified the said plan by projecting that by said act, the respondent would fulfill her desire to commit suicide and at the same time would keep her family under impression that she was alive and must be enjoying the matrimonial life at some place. The respondent was not in her senses and was devoid of rational thinking as she readily agreed to whatever plan and path the appellant showed to her. The appellant took her to Mata Mansa Devi Temple at Panchkula and performed marriage ceremony after arranging a Purohit. He directed the respondent to withdraw money from her bank account so that they can execute the said plan smoothly after making necessary arrangements. The marriage ceremony was performed at Temple Bharmari Devi Jyoti Anusandan Centre, situated near Mansa Devi Temple, Panchkula and after that the respondent returned home but did not disclose anything about the marriage and the respondent continued to reside in Chandigarh as if nothing had happened. The appellant disclosed to the respondent that they had to file a case before the Punjab and Haryana High Court to take directions to the extent that family of both of them could not follow or trace them and they could manage to flee comfortably to some undisclosed place. Accordingly, the appellant took the respondent to some Advocate known to him and got some papers signed after which the case was filed in the High Court in which order of protection to both of them was passed. In the said case, the appellant had impleaded his family members only as the respondents without impleading the family members of the respondent. The appellant had shown his date of birth as 27.12.1983 instead of his actual date of birth as 4.8.1978. 4. After obtaining orders from the High Court, the appellant left the house of the respondent with a promise that he would return after few days and will take her with him to undisclosed place. As the respondent was not knowing anything about the happenings around her therefore, she readily agreed to wait for few days. 4. After obtaining orders from the High Court, the appellant left the house of the respondent with a promise that he would return after few days and will take her with him to undisclosed place. As the respondent was not knowing anything about the happenings around her therefore, she readily agreed to wait for few days. The appellant visited the house of respondent and used to take money on one pretext or the other and kept on promising to take her away from the family members to avoid any kind of humiliation on account of Sandeep Sharma. 5. It is only about one month prior to the filing of the petition before the lower Court that the respondent realised that the appellant is avoiding her and is not fulfilling his commitment and started demanding more and more money without any plausible explanation. The respondent was already under severe tension and depression and on account of consistent demand of money by the appellant whom she considered as God, she thought it proper to end her life at her residence itself and she started planning to commit suicide by hanging herself with a ceiling fan on 23.5.2015, but fortunately her brother Davinder Sharma, saw her while she was throwing her dupatta over the ceiling fan. With the timely intervention of the brother of the respondent, she could not execute the plan to commit suicide. Thereafter, the entire family gathered and pacified the respondent after which she broke down and disclosed the entire incident to them. The entire family of the respondent felt shocked by knowing the actual facts. The family of the respondent made best efforts to take the respondent out of depression as she had shown symptoms of crying and cursing herself for the fault committed by her. In said compelled circumstances, the family sought intervention of Psychiatric and the respondent started taking treatment from the Psychiatric. She regained her senses and mental faculty and realised that she had been duped and cheated by the appellant in order to compel her to get married with him so that he could extract money initially from her and then from her family members under the garb of legally wedded husband and under the garb of order obtained from the High Court. The appellant was of the belief that the respondent would commit suicide and he would be able to blackmail her family for honour killing projecting it to be a suicide inspite of orders passed by the High Court. It is pleaded in the petition that the appellant played fraud upon the respondent by planning the above said conspiracy and committed breach of blind trust reposed in him exploiting his fiduciary status, position and stature provided by the respondent and her family. The breach of trust by the appellant who was considered as next to God having divine powers to heal each and every pain of human beings, is serious and a claim was raised for declaring the marriage void in the light of Section 12(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act. 6. The appellant filed the reply denying himself to be a Godman. He claimed that the respondent had solemnised the marriage with him out of her own wish and consent and stated that his actual date of birth is 27.12.1983 and he had sufficient proof to prove the same. He denied the allegation of marriage having not consummated. He had stated that the respondent had lived with the appellant as husband and wife and not as a Godman. He pleaded that the respondent had lived with him at his native village Rohera, District Kaithal, as legally wedded wife. He denied his status as a Godman. 7. From the pleadings of the parties, the lower Court framed the following issue:- 1. Whether the marriage solemnized between the petitioner and respondent on 23.1.2015, at Chandigarh is void and the petitioner is entitled for decree declaring the marriage as nullity? OPP. 2. Whether the present petition is not maintainable? OPR. 3. Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present petition? OPR. 4. Relief. 8. Issue No. 1 was decided in favour of the respondent holding that the appellant was known to the respondent and her family members. They used to respect him and had confidence and faith in him and they also use to discuss all family matters with him. OPR. 4. Relief. 8. Issue No. 1 was decided in favour of the respondent holding that the appellant was known to the respondent and her family members. They used to respect him and had confidence and faith in him and they also use to discuss all family matters with him. The appellant was put on a higher pedestal believing that he has Godly powers and was a Saint but he breached their trust, misused is position, concocted a false story and misguided a young girl by misleading her that Sandeep Sharma prepared an objectionable video of her and was all set to make the same viral. He played with the emotions of the respondent and created a psychological pressure on her that said video will degrade her family's position in the Society and as a natural consequence of the same, she succumbed to his misconceived scheme and lost power to think rationally and thinking him as messenger of God and spiritual guru who would never let her down, she acted on his directions. A finding was given under issue No. 1 that the consent of the respondent to the marriage was actuated by fraud and the marriage was annulled by deciding issue No. 1 in favour of the respondent and against the appellant. Issue No. 2, was decided in favour of the respondent and against the appellant. Issue No. 3 was decided against the respondent and in favour of the appellant. On the basis of the findings on issue Nos. 1 to 3, the petition of the respondent was allowed and the marriage between the parties was annulled. 9. Counsel for the appellant Mr. Sachin Gupta, has vehemently argued that finding on issue No. 1 delivered in favour of the respondent is absolutely illegal and is based upon misreading of the evidence. He has vehemently urged that the provisions of Section 12(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act, have been chosen in order to wriggle out of the requirement of Section 14 of the Hindu Marriage Act, according to which the marriage can only be dissolved after a period of one year on the grounds mentioned in Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. He has taken this Court to the statements of PW.1 respondent-Mamta; PW.2 Sandeep Sharma, again PW.2 Dyal Chand, the paternal uncle of the respondent; PW.3 Davinder Sharma, the brother of the respondent; PW.4 Dharampal, father of the respondent; PW.5 Satpal who is P.T.I. Government Senior Secondary School, Rohera, District Kaithal; PW.6 Vijay Singh, Assistant in the office of Directorate of Distance Education, Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra; PW.7 Sunil Kumar from State Bank of India, Branch Sector 30, Chandigarh; PW.8 Dr. Jasmine Garg, Sr. Resident, Department of Psychiatry, Government Medical College and Hospital, Sector 32, Chandigarh, PW.9 Rakesh Rastogi as well as PW.10 Narinder Sharma, Assistant, Directorate of Distance Education, Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra. 10. We have also considered the statements of RWs produced by the appellant. Appellant himself appeared as RW.1 and produced Rakesh as RW.2; Ramphal as RW.3 and Devi Dayal as RW.4. 11. A great emphasis was laid by the counsel for the appellant on the cross-examination of PW.2 Sandeep Sharma who had stated that he never had any telephonic conversation with the appellant but the appellant had visited his house along with 2-3 persons and threatened his family members not to allow him to depose in the case. He has tried to draw benefit of the statement of Dr. Jasmine Garg, who was examined as PW.8 and deposed that the respondent had symptoms of depression and suicidal tendencies, as such she was provided medicines. She has admitted in her cross-examination that the respondent was not insane and was in her senses. 12. In order to establish that the appellant had stayed with the respondent and consummated the marriage, a strong reliance was placed on the statement of Devi Dayal RW.4, the Ex-General Secretary of All India Baba Sain Bhagat Sabha, Kurukshetra, who stated that Dharamshala rooms are allotted to only legally married couples and not to unmarried girls and boys and that the appellant had book rooms twice in the Dharamshala and deposited his identity card and that of is wife who was named Mamta. 13. We have carefully gone through the statements of all the witnesses produced by the respondent as well as the appellant. 13. We have carefully gone through the statements of all the witnesses produced by the respondent as well as the appellant. Respondent Mamta has proved the contents of the petition to establish that the appellant was treated as a Godman who dissuaded her to have relationship with Sandeep Sharma, who was friendly to her and misused his influence and fiduciary capacity to persuade her to marry him so that she would be absolved of all the pains and sufferings and the feelings of suicide. Statement of PW.2 Sandeep Sharma, is sufficient enough to corroborate his relationship with the respondent. Dayal Chand PW.2 is the uncle of the respondent who established the status of the appellant and the sufferings of the respondent on account of misuse of the faith of the respondent in the divine powers of the appellant. PW.3 Davinder Sharma, is the brother of Mamta who has corroborated the pathetic situation of the respondent having been pushed into the situation where she wanted to commit suicide. Dharampal father of Mamta, appeared as PW.4 and stated that the appellant was known to the family since 2012. He had the status of a Godman and the respondent tried to commit suicide on account of breach of trust committed by the appellant in the capacity as Godman in whom faith was deposed. He established that his daughter had told him that she had performed marriage ceremony in a small temple in Mansa Devi. He took her to the hospital and consulted the doctor who disclosed that respondent was in a mentally fragile condition. PW.5 Satpal, a teacher from the Government Senior Secondary School, Rohera, District Kaithal, established that date of birth of the appellant is 4.8.1978 as per the School Certificate EX. PW5/2. PW.6 Vijay Singh established that the respondent had taken admission in MCA-III, in Kurukshetra University and produced the attendance certificate as EX. PW6/2. PW.7 Sunil Kumar, an official of the State Bank of India, had proved the withdrawals as EX. PW7/2 from ATM to corroborate the pleadings of the respondent. Dr. Jasmine Garg, PW.8 proved the OPD card EX. P9 and stated that the respondent had been diagnosed with adjustment disorder having symptoms of sadness, suicidal tendencies, guilt feeling, weeping spells and disturbed sleep who was advised medicines and counselling. The medical record was proved as PW.8/1. PW7/2 from ATM to corroborate the pleadings of the respondent. Dr. Jasmine Garg, PW.8 proved the OPD card EX. P9 and stated that the respondent had been diagnosed with adjustment disorder having symptoms of sadness, suicidal tendencies, guilt feeling, weeping spells and disturbed sleep who was advised medicines and counselling. The medical record was proved as PW.8/1. Rakesh Rastogi, produced the attendance sheet showing the classes attended by Sandeep and Mamta as EX. PW9/1 and EX. PW9/2, showing that Mamta had taken admission after Sandeep in the same Institute. 14. PW.10, Narinder Sharma produced the attendance of the respondent for personal contact Programme (PCP). 15. The appellant had gone to the extent of denying having studied in the Government Senior Secondary School, Rohera. He tried to establish that the respondent stayed with him in his native village for 10-15 days. When confronted with photographs EX. R11 to EX. P18, he admitted that he was seen giving blessings to the persons by putting his hands on their heads. However, he denied that he had ever claimed that he is blessed with Godly powers. He admitted that the respondent used to take tuition before marriage at Chandigarh from 'Gynam' Institute in Sector 34, Chandigarh and Sandeep was studying with the respondent but he tried to retrieve from the said statement by stating that he was not sure of the name of the boy. RW.2 Rakesh was produced to support the case of the appellant. Similarly, Pawan Kumar, Panch of Panchayat of village of the appellant was examined who claimed that he knew the appellant. Main emphasis was laid on the testimony of Devi Dayal RW.4, who in his affidavit RW.4/A deposed that Dharamshala rooms which are allowed to be allotted to only legally wedded couples was allotted to appellant vide EX. RW.4/1. 16. We have carefully considered the entire evidence produced on the record. The status of the appellant being a Godman is established from the vague denial of said fact in his written statement and stands established by respondent Mamta PW.1, her uncle Dyal Chand PW.2, brother of the respondent Davinder Sharma PW.3 and father of the respondent Dharampal PW.4. The testimony of all the above said witnesses corroborate the fact regarding the respect shown to the appellant as a Godman. The tail of woe and miseries suffered by the respondent at the instance of the appellant stands established. The testimony of all the above said witnesses corroborate the fact regarding the respect shown to the appellant as a Godman. The tail of woe and miseries suffered by the respondent at the instance of the appellant stands established. There is no reason to disbelieve that she had relations with Sandeep which was disclosed by her to the appellant. The natural human greed and sexual urge of the appellant on account of his fiduciary relation is clearly established from the testimony of Mamta as well as her brother and father. She has established on the record through the statement of PW.8 Dr. Jasmine Garg that it was the appellant who was responsible for her mental disorder. There is no reason for this Court to believe that the mental status of a young girl aged about 23 years having relations with Sandeep was not relished by the appellant and with an objective to satisfy his lust by misusing his status as Godman, he was able to use his undue influence to perturb her mind and achieve his malicious intentions by misrepresenting his age which stands established from EX. PW5/2 as 4.8.1978. It is not unknown that a Godman like appellant creates a false impression in the minds of the people by their sermons by reflecting that they have got divine powers and when the families fall into their trap, they use the undue influence to exploit them sexually. This is a glaring example of such a nature. The trial Court has rightly decided issue No. 1 in favour of the respondent and against the appellant. We do not find any ground to set aside the finding on issue No. 1 on the flimsy and baseless arguments raised by the counsel for the appellant that the respondent had voluntarily married the appellant and she should be pressurized to continue with the relationship which is based upon fraud. The marriage is definitely void as the consent of the respondent has been obtained by the appellant by using the fiduciary relationship as a Godman and trapped the respondent by false representations and poisoning her mind and creating a fear of morality and illegality in maintaining her relationship with Sandeep. The finding on issue No. 1 is upheld. 17. The marriage is definitely void as the consent of the respondent has been obtained by the appellant by using the fiduciary relationship as a Godman and trapped the respondent by false representations and poisoning her mind and creating a fear of morality and illegality in maintaining her relationship with Sandeep. The finding on issue No. 1 is upheld. 17. We also do not find any force in the contention that the petition has been filed by the respondent to avoid the statutory bar under Section 14 of the Hindu Marriage Act. It is the right of a party to seek annulment of marriage under Section 12(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act by establishing that the content of one of the parties had been obtained by fraud as to material fact concerning the respondent. The respondent had rightly opted to file a petition under Section 12(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act, for seeking declaration regarding the marriage being void as the plea for the grant of divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, is not available. 18. In view of above, the appeal is dismissed throughout with costs of Rs. 20,000/-. 19. Interim order dated 7.12.2017 is vacated.