Man gets marriage to pregnant neighbour declared ‘voidable’

Source : Times Of India

MUMBAI: A city court recently declared the marriage of a 30-year-old Indian Air Force employee voidable after he claimed he was forcibly married off in 2005 to his eight-months pregnant neighbour who was carrying another man's child.

The court gave its order on the basis of a section of the Hindu Marriage Act which allows a marriage to be declared voidable if a woman is pregnant by another man at the time of marriage.

The man, a Khar resident, said he knew the woman as she lived in his neighbourhood. In a petition filed in 2006, he said that in February 2005, the woman's mother and a social worker took him to a doctor who informed him the woman was pregnant. The woman's family alleged the child was his. The man, then a 22-year-old, denied this and alleged the woman was involved with another man. However, the woman and her family started threatening him with dire consequences, he stated.

On June 9, 2005, he alleged that the woman's mother and a social worker forcibly took him to Bandra court and, once there, asked him to sign some papers. They then took him to a temple and forced him to marry the woman. They threatened him with dire consequences if he did not do what they were asking for and also said they'd make him lose his job.

At the time of marriage, the man said, the woman was eight months pregnant. In July 2005, she gave birth to a girl. In October 2005, the woman and her mother abused, threatened and assaulted him and tried to force him to take her and the child to his residence, but he refused, he stated.

It is not clear if the two ever lived together, but the man said in his petition that the marriage was not consummated. He claimed the marriage was null and void also because he was a Buddhist and the rites performed at the temple were Hindu.

Seeking dismissal of the petition, the woman told the court the man had filed it to harass her and falsely blamed her character. She claimed he would giver her gifts, cared for her and was very nice to her. The man had even agreed to marry her and treated her as his wife, she said. However, his behaviour changed after she became pregnant with his child, she claimed, and called his version of events "imaginary".

In its judgment, the court said the woman had remained absent for cross-examination on two dates, so it was treating her evidence given in 2006 as cancelled.

The court observed that in the absence of her evidence, it could be said that the man had proved she was pregnant by another person at the time of marriage.