2026:JHHC:285-DB 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI First Appeal No.173 of 2024 Manoj Kumar Pramanik, Aged about 35 years, S/O- Sambhu Thakur, R/O-Aamtand, Barwadih, P.O.- Katrasbazar, P.S.-Katras, District-Dhanbad. … Petitioner/Appellant Versus 1.Rakhi Devi, Aged about 20 years, W/O –Manoj Kumar Pramanik, D/o-Chhatradhary Thakur, R/O-Telodih, P.O.- Singhdaha, P.S.-Topchanchi, District-Dhanbad. 2.Bhakti Thakur, Aged about 34 years, S/O-Pitamber Pramanik, R/O-Near-Raja Talab, P.O.-Katrasbazar, P.S. Katras, District-Katras, District-Dhanbad. … …Respondents/Respondents ------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI ------- For the Appellant : Mr. Ajay Kumar Sah, Advocate For the Res No. 1 : Mr. Nehru Maho, Advocate For the Res. No. 2 : Mr. Naresh Pd. Thakur, Advocate ---------- CAV on 20.12.2025 Pronounced on 07/01/2026 Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. 1. The instant appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Court Act, 1984 is directed against the judgment dated 25.06.2024 and decree signed on 05.07.2024 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family Court No. II, Dhanbad in Original Suit No. 693 of 2019, whereby and whereunder, the suit filed by the petitioner-appellant [husband] for dissolution of marriage by decree of divorce u/s 12(1)(d) of the of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, has been dismissed. 2026:JHHC:285-DB 2 2. The brief facts of the case, leading to filing of the divorce petition by the appellant-petitioner, as taken note in the impugned order as emanated from the plaint, needs to be referred herein, which as under: 3. The petitioner has filed a suit for decree of dissolution of marriage on the ground that marriage is null and void u/s 12(1)(d) of Hindu Marriage Act 1955. 4. The case of petitioner-appellant, in brief, is that the he is legally married with the respondent and their marriage was solemnized on 26-04-2019 at Telodih, according to Hindu Rites and Customs. After the marriage, both the petitioner- appellant and respondent no. 1 had been living together as wife and husband at Amtand, Barwadih. Out of the wedlock the couple was blessed with no child. 5. It is stated that respondent no-1 started cohabited with the petitioner, on the very second day of marriage but thereafter the respondent no-1 was taken to Dr. Nitu Singh at 'Baba Clinic' Katrasbazar, on the complain that she has stomach pain, where after examining the respondent no-1 the doctor found that respondent no-1 pregnant. 6. It is alleged that the respondent no-1 is pregnant before marriage and when he inquired with respondent no-1 she admitted her relationship with respondent no-2 who is her Chachera [cousin] Jija. Moreover the respondent no-1 all along persisted with the telephonic conversation with 2026:JHHC:285-DB 3 respondent no-2 as there was love affair and illicit relationship between respondent no-1 and respondent no-2. 7. The petitioner informed the matter to the father and brother of the respondent no-1. Thereafter they came and took away the daughter on 03-06-2019 upon signing an agreement and stated that they were taking away respondent no-1 as per their own will and responsibility. It is further stated that in this regard the father of petitioner had filed a Misc. Case no- 1260/19 before the court of Executive Magistrate, Dhanbad on11-06-2019. 8. It is stated that the cause of action for filed the suit arose on 26-04-2019 when the marriage of the petitioner with respondent no-1 was performed. It also arose on several occasion when the respondent no.1 misbehaved with the petitioner-appellant since the knowledge of pregnancy on 29- 05-2019 of the respondent no-1 and illicit relationship with the respondent no-2. 9. On the aforesaid ground, the petitioner-appellant filed the suit praying therein to declare the marriage null and void u/s 12(1) (d) of Hindu Marriage Act 1955. 10. Respondent(s) appeared and contested the suit by filing the written statement and stated that the present case filed by petitioner is neither maintainable in law nor on facts hence is liable to be dismissed. 2026:JHHC:285-DB 4 11. It has been stated that the entire allegation made by the petitioner is totally false and concocted. It is further stated that the respondent no-1 has filed a case in Mahila Thana, Dhanbad vide case no-21/19 against the petitioner and his family members and only to save skin from the case the petitioner has filed the present false case. 12. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the learned family court mainly framed the issue as to whether the respondent at the time of the marriage was pregnant by a person other than the petitioner. 13. The learned Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family Court-II, Dhanbad after appreciating the evidence adduced on behalf of parties, came to the conclusion that the petitioner-husband has not been able to prove his case against the respondent-wife even to the extent of preponderance of probabilities. Accordingly, find and hold that petitioner/appellant is not to get the decree to annul the marriage between both parties as null and void under section 12(1) (d) of Hindu Marriage Act 1955. 14. Accordingly, the suit for decree of divorce was dismissed, against which the instant appeal has been filed. Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant-husband: 15. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that the factual aspect which was available before the learned family court supported by the evidences adduced on behalf of the 2026:JHHC:285-DB 5 appellant, has not properly been considered and as such, the judgment impugned is perverse, hence, not sustainable in the eyes of law. 16. While passing the impugned judgment, the learned family court failed to consider that respondent no. 1 was pregnant at the time of marriage, even though in support of such submission documents as Exhibit 1,1/2 and 1/2 have been produced and exhibited. 17. It has been submitted that the learned family court has failed to consider that respondent no. 1 was pregnant prior to her marriage from respondent no. 2 [cousin brother-in- law]. 18. Furthermore, the conversion between the respondent no. 1 and respondent no. 2 regarding their illicit relationship and how to hide the pregnancy was recorded in the mobile phone and the same was produced before the learned trial court in pen drive, which has been marked as Material Exhibit-I but the same was not taken into consideration while passing the impugned judgment, though regarding mobile conversation between respondent no. 1 and respondent no. 2 which was produced in pen drive was dealt with in the impugned order but same was not considered by learned Family Court, while passing the impugned judgment. 2026:JHHC:285-DB 6 19. Further submission has been made that respondent no. 1 herself terminated her pregnancy on 05.06.2019 in order to hide the fact about pregnancy. 20. Referring to Exhibits dealing with medical test of respondent no. 1, submission has been made that marriage was solemnized on 26.04.2019 and on 29.05.2019, the pregnancy shows of five weeks, which itself shows that pregnancy was prior to marriage but that has not been taken into consideration by the learned family judge. 21. Submission has been made that mother of respondent no. 1 in C.P. Case No. 5253 of 2022 has deposed that respondent was pregnant at the time of marriage. Such deposition has duly been marked as exhibit 2, but this piece of evidence has not properly been appreciated. 22. Learned counsel for the appellant, based upon the aforesaid grounds, has submitted that the judgment impugned suffers from perversity, as such, is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Submission of the learned counsel for the respondents: 23. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent- wife, while defending the impugned judgment, has submitted that there is no error in the impugned judgment. 24. Submission has been made that immediately after marriage the appellant-husband started torturing the respondent no.1-wife, for which, she filed a case for demand of dowry 2026:JHHC:285-DB 7 against her husband. Further, she also filed a case for committing rape against her devar. Therefore, in order to save his skin such false case has been filed. 25. Even the medical report suggests that the pregnancy was after the marriage and furthermore, the in pen drive containing the conversation of respondent no.1 and respondent no. 2 nothing objectionable was found by the learned family judge. 26. The learned Additional Principal Judge considering these aspects of the matter has dismissed the suit, which cannot be said to suffer from an error. Analysis: 27. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the finding recorded by the learned Family Judge in the impugned judgment. 28. The evidence has been led on behalf of both the parties. On behalf of appellant-husband, three witnesses have been examined, namely, Sambhu Thakur [PW 1]; Yogendra Thakur [PW 2] and Manoj Kumar Pramanik [PW 3, the appellant]. Besides oral evidence, many documentaries evidence has also been produced on behalf of appellant. 29. Ext.-1 is Doctor's prescription of Rakhi Devi [respondent no. 1-wife]; Ext.-1/1 is Test report dt.29-05-2019 of Rakhi Devi; Ext.-1/2 is Test report dated 30-05-2019; Ext.-2 is certified copy of deposition of Nanki Devi in CP case no-5253/22; 2026:JHHC:285-DB 8 Xerox copy of Akrarnama [agreement] has been marked as Exhibit X for identification. Pen Drive has been marked as material Ext.-I. 30. The respondent no.1 has produced and examined altogether two witnesses, namely, DW-1 Chhatradhari Thakur; DW-2 Rakhi Devi. (Respondent no-1 herself). The respondent no. 1 has produced documentary evidence on her behalf also. Ext.-A is Invitation Card of marriage of Kumari Poonam and Manoj Thakur; Ext.-B is the Treatment prescription Report of Rakhi Devi; Ext.-B/1 is the Ultrasound report of Rakhi Devi; Ext.-B/2 is the Ultrasound of Rakhi Devi. 31. This Court in order to appreciate the testimony available on record has gone through the testimonies of the witnesses available on record. 32. P.W. 1-Shambhu Thakur, father of the appellant, has stated in his examination-in-chief that marriage of the appellant and respondent no.1 was solemnized on 26.04.2019. It is deposed that on the very next day of marriage, the respondent no. 1 complained of stomach pain, as such she was taken to the clinic of Dr. Nitu Rani, where in course of examination it was found that the respondent no. 1 is pregnant for one and half month. It has further been deposed that on being enquired by the appellant and his mother, the respondent no. 1-wife has admitted that she had illicit relation with respondent no. 2 for the last few months 2026:JHHC:285-DB 9 and further the conversion between the respondent no. 1 and respondent no. 2 has also been recorded which is in pen drive. 33. He has further deposed that all these matters have been told to father and brother of respondent no. 1, upon which on 03.06.2019, there was agreement between them and thereafter the respondent no. 1 went with her father to her maike. 34. It is further alleged that after return to her father’s house, the respondent no. 1 demanded the medical reports and threatened to trap in false case to him and his family members. Thereafter, on 11.06.2019 he [the father of the appellant] filed a case no. 1260 of 2019 under Section 30 of the IPC. 35. It has further been deposed that before marriage there was talk between the appellant and respondent no. 1 but respondent no. 1 did not tell about her illicit relationship with respondent no. 2. 36. This witness has thoroughly been cross-examined. In cross examination, he has stated that Rakhi Devi [respondent no. 1-wife] was never tortured in her sasural for demand of dowry. In the case of demand of dowry and cruelty he was granted bail. After marriage Rakhi Devi [respondent no. 1- wife] resided in his house for four days and thereafter, she went away to her maika. His son had gone to take Rakhi 2026:JHHC:285-DB 10 Devi [respondent no. 1-wife] and she again went to her sasural and resided for three days. The dispute arose on the second day of the marriage on behalf of Rakhi Devi. She does not cook food in his house. She resided only for 11 days in his house and since thereafter did not return to her sasural. In Mahila Thana both husband and wife have been persuaded but they both did not ready to reside together. He has sent the proposal of compromise but his daughter-in- law did not ready for the same. It is not true that his son has illicit relationship with another lady due to which he tortured to his wife. 37. P.W. 2, Yogendra Thakur, has also supported the case of the appellant. In cross-examination he has stated that the appellant-Manoj Pramanik has stated that the respondent no. 1 has pregnancy of one and half month and further the statement made at paragraph 5 of his examination-in-chief that he has been told by Manoj Pramanik and his mother and all the information has been received from appellant- Manoj Pramanik and his mother. P.W. 2 has stated that his house is 100 metre from the house of Manoj Kumar. He came to know with Manoj Kumar regarding one and half month pregnancy of Rakhi Devi. 38. PW-3 is the petitioner-appellant who has stated in his examination-in-chief that he was married with respondent no-1, namely, Rakhi Devi on 26-04-2019. After marriage 2026:JHHC:285-DB 11 respondent no-1 came to his house at Aamtard Katras to lead conjugal life. He has further stated that on the very second day of marriage his wife suffered from stomach pain and then he took her to clinic of Dr. Nitu Rani where in course of examination she was found to be pregnant for one and half months. The prescription of Dr. Nitu Kumar Singh has been filed, which has been marked as Ext.-1. 39. He has further stated that on being inquired his wife said that she is having illicit relationship with respondent no-2 Bhakti Thakur prior to marriage. He has produced pen drive regarding conversation of respondent no. 1 and respondent no.2. Thereafter, on 03-06-2019 father of respondent no-1 and her uncle came who took the respondent/wife by executing an agreement (akrarnama). 40. The family members of his wife did not disclose the fact that prior to marriage she was pregnant. From the medical report dated 29-05-2019 it is clear that she was pregnant prior to marriage. The examination report has been marked as 1/1 and 1/2 with objection. 41. In cross-examination, he has stated that after marriage his wife resided only for two days in his house and thereafter she went away to her maika. She again returned back to her sasural and stayed for one day and thereafter her father came and again took her. His wife again came to her sasural on 28-05-2019 and resided for eight days and again 2026:JHHC:285-DB 12 returned to her maika on 03-06-2019. After marriage his father has not instituted any case but informed to the senior officer. He has falsely mentioned in the 'A' portion the plaint regarding physical relationship with his wife. In the prescription of Dr. Nitu Singh dated 29-05-2019 only the name of Rakhi Devi is mentioned, neither the name of her husband nor her age has been mentioned. 42. In the X-ray report and ECHO Report also the father or husband's name of Rakhi Devi has not been mentioned. The Petitioner/appellant has left respondent/wife since year 2019. His father-in-law and brother-in-law had come to his house and demanded medical paper and threatened them. In this regard he has not given information to Thana. He has not mentioned in his affidavit that his wife tortured him physically and mentally and also abused him. He knows to Bhakti Thakur prior to marriage, who is cousin Jija of respondent Rakhi Devi. Further, he was granted anticipatory bail by the Hon'ble High court in the case of dowry. 43. Dw-1-Chhatradhari Thakur, is father of the respondent, who has supported the case of respondent no.-1 in examination-in-chief. 44. In cross-examination, he has stated that his daughter has filed case for demand of dowry against her husband. She also has filed a case for committing rape against her Devar [brother of her husband]. Prior to filing of this case his 2026:JHHC:285-DB 13 daughter has filed a case in Mahila Thana. After marriage his son-in-law took his wife for pregnancy test and his daughter has found to be pregnant. It is true that the case filed by his daughter in Mahila Thana was ended as F.R.T. It is not true that his daughter was found to be pregnant due to which petitioner has filed this case. 45. DW-2 is respondent herself who has stated in her examination-in-chief that she was married with petitioner on 26-04-2019. After marriage she came to her sasural and both husband and wife started living as husband and wife and they both have cohabited to each other and they both resided for ten days together peacefully. Thereafter, her in- laws put pressure upon her to bring Rs. Two Lakh as dowry and on being denied by her they started torturing her physically and mentally. Her husband has made false allegation as because after marriage cohabitation took place between both parties for several days as a result of which she got pregnant. 46. He has falsely made allegation that she is having illicit relationship with one Bharti Thakur. In course of torturing he instigated to his brother Suraj Thakur for committing rape and on 03-06-2019 her situation was very critical and then upon information her father and others came and took her and while going to her maika her in-laws got written a document forcibly and only to save life of her the family 2026:JHHC:285-DB 14 members put signature upon the documents. She was treated on 04-06-2019 by Dr. Shivani Jha. She was beaten by her in-laws which caused miscarriage, even then, she wants to lead conjugal life with her husband. 47. In cross-examination, she has stated that after filing of this case she has filed case for demand of dowry. Bhakti Thakur resides in Katras. She put his signature in an agreement executed on 03-06 2019. From 26-04-2019 to 03-06-2019 she resided in her sasural for one and half months. It is false to say that on 26-04-2019 she was pregnant. It is not true that she was pregnant on the time of marriage on 26-04- 2019 and she has given false evidence. 48. On the basis of the pleading of the parties, the learned Additional Principal Family Judge had framed issues for proper determination of the lis, and after due appreciation of the ocular as well as documentary evidence, the suit filed by the petitioner-appellant [husband] for dissolution of marriage by decree of divorce u/s 12 (1)(d) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 against respondent/husband, has been dismissed. 49. From the aforesaid factual aspect, it is evident that the petitioner-husband, the appellant herein, had made allegation that prior to marriage his wife was pregnant with another person namely Bhakti Thakur (Respondent no-2), whereas the respondent no1-wife has denied such allegation 2026:JHHC:285-DB 15 and stated that after consummation of marriage, she became pregnant and in the ultrasound on 29.05.2019, she was found to be pregnancy of five weeks, therefore, the contention of the appellant is totally baseless that prior to marriage she was pregnant. 50. The suit was filed by the petitioner-husband to declare the marriage null and void taking aid of Section 12(1)(d) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. 51. Therefore, this Court before proceeding to deal with the respective submissions of the counsel as also before appreciating the evidence adduced on behalf of the parties, as taken note of above, deems it appropriate to have a glance to the relevant provisions which may assume some importance in addressing the issue. Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act contains the conditions for the valid marriage solemnized between any two Hindus. The said section is reproduced hereunder: “5. Conditions for a Hindu Marriage.- A marriage may be solemnized between any two Hindus, if the following conditions are fulfilled, namely: (i) neither party has a spouse living at the time of the marriage; (ii) at the time of the marriage, neither party- (a) is incapable of giving a valid consent to it in consequence of unsoundness of mind; or (b) though capable of giving a valid consent, has been suffering from mental disorder of such a 2026:JHHC:285-DB 16 kind or to such an extent as to be unfit for marriage and the procreation of children; or (c) has been subject to recurrent attacks of insanity (iii) the bridegroom has completed the age of twenty-one years and the bride, the age of eighteen years at the time of the marriage; (iv) the parties are not within the degree of prohibited relationship, unless the custom or usage governing each of them permits of a marriage between the two; (v) the parties are not sapindas of each other, unless the custom or usage governing each of them permits of a marriage between the two; 52. Section 7 of the Act relates to the ceremonies for the Hindu Marriage to be performed with Customary Rites of either parties including Saptopodi i.e. taking of seven steps by bridegroom and bride jointly before the sacred fire to complete the marriage. The marriage shall be declared null and void at the option of either of the parties if it contravenes any of the provisions specified in Clause (i), (iv) and (v) of Section 5 of the said Act. Section 12 of the Act, which is pertinent in the present case, can be resorted to either of the parties for annulling the marriage as nullity provided the grounds set fourth therein are satisfied. Section 12 of the Act 1955, is quoted below: “12. Voidable marriages. - (1) Any marriage solemnized, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, shall be voidable and may be annulled by a decree of nullity on any of the following grounds, namely: 2026:JHHC:285-DB 17 (a) that the marriage has not been consummated owing to the impotence of the respondent; or (b) that the marriage is in contravention of the condition specified in clause (ii) of section 5; or (c) that the consent of the petitioner, or where the consent of the guardian in marriage of the petitioner was required under section 5 as it stood immediately before the commencement of the Child Marriage Restraint (Amendment) Act 1978 (2 of 1978), the consent of such guardian was obtained by force or by fraud as to the nature of the ceremony or as to any material fact or circumstance concerning the respondent; or (d) that the respondent was at the time of the marriage pregnant by some person other than the petitioner. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), no petition for annulling a marriage: (a) on the ground specified in clause (c) of sub-section (1) shall be entertained if: (i) the petition is presented more than one year after the force had ceased to operate or, as the case may be, the fraud had been discovered; or (ii) the petitioner has, with his or her full consent, lived with the other party to the marriage as husband or wife after the force had ceased to operate or, as the case may be, the fraud had been discovered; (b) On the ground specified in clause (d) of sub-section (1) shall be entertained unless the Court is satisfied: (i) that the petitioner was at the time of the marriage ignorant of the facts alleged; (ii) that proceedings have been instituted in the case of a marriage solemnized before the commencement of this Act within one year of such commencement and in the case of 2026:JHHC:285-DB 18 marriages solemnised after such commencement within one year from the date of the marriage; and (iii) that marital intercourse with the consent of the petitioner has not taken place since the discovery by the petitioner of the existence of the said ground.” 53. Looking to Section 12(1)(d) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, it is voidable marriage if the circumstances stated in Section 12(1)(d) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 are proved. Section 12(1)(d) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, allows for annulment of a marriage if the respondent (wife) was pregnant by someone other than the petitioner (husband) at the time of marriage, provided the husband was ignorant of this fact and took action within a year of discovery, without consummating the marriage after learning the truth. It's a ground for declaring a marriage voidable (not automatically void) if crucial aspects, like the wife's premarital pregnancy by another, were concealed. 54. It needs to refer herein that under the Hindu Law, a marriage is not a contract but sacrament. The Hindu Marriage Act has no doubt made an inroad into the close preserve of the ancient Hindu Law strongly suggesting the marriage as sacrament and not contract which still goes strong. Both the Hindu Marriage Act and Contract Act are not pari materia as the former deals with marriages and the other deals with contract and commerce. There are still strong reasons to hold that the Hindu Marriage is not a 2026:JHHC:285-DB 19 contract but sacrament, as the contract can at the will of the parties be dissolved but the parties who contract a marriage cannot except, of course, divorce by mutual consent as provided under Section 13B of the said Act. 55. Bearing in mind the principles, which flow from a fair reading of the statutory provisions as noted above, we proceed to examine whether the appellant has succeeded in establishing the case for declaring the marriage null and void on the ground of the respondent was at the time of the marriage pregnant by some person other than the petitioner. 56. From perusal of Section 12(1)(d) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, it is evident that it focuses on grounds for voidable marriages, particularly when the wife was pregnant by someone other than the husband at the time of marriage, affirming it as a valid ground for annulment if proven, emphasizing the need for material concealment or fraud by the wife that would have prevented the marriage if known, and highlighting issues like timely filing and proof of the pre- existing pregnancy. 57. This Court, bearing in the mind the provision of Section 12(1)(d) of the Act 1955, has gone into the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, to examine whether the appellant has succeeded in establishing the case for declaring the marriage null and void on the ground that at the time of marriage, the wife was pregnant and for 2026:JHHC:285-DB 20 coming out such conclusion, we again delve into the testimonies of the witnesses as also the exhibits available on record as also submissions advanced on behalf of parties. 58. 58. As per evidence of appellant and other witnesses produced on his behalf on the second day of the marriage all of sudden respondent suffered from stomach pain and thereafter she was taken to the clinic of Dr. Nitu Rani where in course of examination she was found to be pregnant for one and half months. 59. While on the other hand, the said fact has been denied by the respondent-wife in her pleadings as well as in her evidence and stated that after marriage she came to her sasural to lead her conjugal life where she resided for ten days peacefully and thereafter due to demand of dowry of Rs two lakhs her in-laws started torturing her. In sasural her husband cohabited her several times resultantly she got pregnant thereafter they had demanded Rs. Two lakh and had made false allegation against her that she was pregnant with another person and she is having illicit relationship with one Bhakti Thakur. She was brutally beaten on 03-06- 2019 and to save her life she came to her maika and she was treated on 04-06-2019 with Dr. Shivani Jha ultimately her pregnancy terminated on 05-06-2019 due to beaten her by her in-laws. 2026:JHHC:285-DB 21 60. On perusal of evidence of appellant, it appears that he has given contradictory statement which does not support with documentary evidence. In his evidence in para-4 he has stated that on the second day of marriage his wife was suffering from stomach pain and so she was taken to clinic of doctor where it is found that she was pregnant. Meaning thereby she was found to be pregnant just after two days of marriage solemnized on 26-04-2019. In support of his contention, prescription of doctor has been filed, which has been marked as Exhibit, wherefrom it is evident that respondent-wife had been taken to the clinic on 29.05.2019 i.e., after more than one month of the marriage whereas as per petitioner-husband she was taken to clinic just after two days of marriage. Therefore, the statement of the appellant gets falsified. 61. Further, the appellant himself has admitted in his plaint to have cohabitation with his wife several times when she came to her sasural but in his evidence he stated that he has falsely stated in his plaint regarding physical relationship of him with his wife so here also he has given contradictory statement. 62. Admittedly, herein the respondent-wife had filed case against her husband and in-laws for demand of dowry and cruelty, which has been admitted by the father of the appellant who has also stated that his daughter-in-law has 2026:JHHC:285-DB 22 filed case for demand of dowry and cruelty against him and his son, which prima-facie substantiated the fact that in sasural respondent was subjected to cruelty by her-in-laws. Further, the question herein is that if she was found to be pregnant on very second day of the marriage then why she was allowed to return back in her sasural. 63. Even as per prescription of Dr. Nitu Singh exhibit (one series) Respondent Rakhi Devi was taken to her clinic on 29- 05-2019 and after check-up she was advised for pregnancy test and ultrasound of stomach and she was found to be pregnant of five weeks on 29-05-2019 and date of LMP is 21- 4-2019 which means she was pregnant after 21-04-2019 i.e., after LMP and her marriage was solemnized on 26-04- 2019, so the report of doctor also suggests that she was pregnant after marriage and not prior to marriage. 64. Further respondent was also taken to the clinic of Dr. Shivani Jha on 04-06-2019 by her family members and as per the medical report of doctor she was found to be pregnant of one and half months from the date of LMP [Last Menstrual Period] dated 21.04.2019 and as per Ultrasound report the expected delivery date is 26-01-2020 (+& - 14 days.) It is admitted fact that since the marriage of both parties were solemnized on 26-04-2019 and it may be presumed the first day of coitus is 26-04-2019 when she got pregnant then expected delivery would be the month of 2026:JHHC:285-DB 23 January 2020. So as per this report of another doctor also the respondent got pregnant after marriage and not prior to marriage. 65. Further, before the learned family court, the respondent-wife has produced a marriage card which has been marked as Ext.A and wherefrom it is evident that the marriage of petitioner was fixed with another lady Kumari Poonam on 10-10-2022. Therefore, on this ground also it may be conferred that petitioner wants to solemnize second marriage with another lady during existence of first marriage and therefore possibility of the false allegation against respondent cannot be denied completely. 66. On behalf of appellant a pen drive was produced before the learned family court which is allegedly the audio clip, the same was heard by the learned family court but nothing objectionable was found in the pen drive and the conversation recorded therein was not found to be relevant with respect to this case. Therefore, on this ground also the appellant failed to establish his case. 67. This Court, on the basis of discussions made hereinabove, is of the considered view that the appellant has failed to prove that the respondent was pregnant prior to marriage, so as to obtain decree of dissolution of marriage on the ground that marriage is null and void under Section 12(1)(d) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. 2026:JHHC:285-DB 24 68. Learned additional family judge, after taking into consideration the aforesaid fact since has come to the conclusion that the appellant-petitioner has not been able to prove his case against the respondent-wife even to the extent of preponderance of probabilities and as such hold that the appellant is not entitled to get a decree to annul the marriage between both parties as null and void under section 12(1) (d) of Hindu Marriage Act 1955, which in our considered view cannot be faulted with. 69. Accordingly, the instant appeal fails and is dismissed. 70. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. I Agree (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) (Arun Kumar Rai, J.) (Arun Kumar Rai, J.) 07th January, 2026 A.F.R. Alankar/ Uploaded on 08.01.2026