Held, that condonation to be effective has both a factual and mental element. There is to be both a factum of reinstatement and a clear intention to forego and remit the wrong. Therefore, an, effective and total condonation can arise only from a conscious and deliberate ratification of the marital status by the aggrieved spouse which may lead to a strong inference of a total wiping off a matrimonial offence. There is no inflexible rule that a solitary freakish act of sexual intercourse would raise an irrebuttable presumption of total condonation or forgiveness of a gross matrimonial offence. The statute declares that it is no marriage in the eve of law where one of the parties was induced to enter into a matrimonial alliance under coercion, duress or fraud evidencing lack of free consent. Therefore, a marriage procured by force or fraud has no sanctity and is voidable at the election of the injured party. This being the substantive provision, the legislature, however, bars a decree of annulment of marriage as an exception if the specific conditions spelt out in sub-section (2) of Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, are satisfied, An analysis of this provision relevant to clause (c) of sub-section (1) would indicate that even after the discovery of fraud two other significant conditions have to be satisfied; firstly, the most significant one is the factum of the two spouses living together as husband and wife; secondly, that such living together must be with the full and free consent of the condoning spouse. The language used here is meaningful. It first pinpoints that one spouse must live with the other, but that by itself may not be sufficient. For instance, if both of them are merely living in the same premises, but not as husband and wife, the same may not be conclusive. The statute further requires that such a living must be a matrimonial living together as husband and wife even after a conscious discovery of the fraud and with a full and free consent. The import of the language used, therefore, is only a pointer to the fact that there has to be a conscious and deliberate condonation and a full ratification of the matrimonial status which alone would amount to a bar against challenging a marriage which otherwise is vitiated by force or fraud. In other words, both the physical and the mental requirements must concur to ratify a marriage which intrinsically is not valid, but is to be given ex post facto sanction by subsequent conduct of living together as husband and wife with free consent. These stringent conditions of the statute would not stand satisfied by a solitary act of sexual intercourse.
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bikkar Singh vs Mohinder Kaur on 2 June, 1981
Equivalent citations: AIR 1981 P H 391
Bench: S Sandhawalia, S Mital
