Difficult to believe independent working woman in Mumbai will remain silent about marriage done by giving spiked prasad: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court recently refused to accept the argument of a woman that her marriage to her husband was not consensual but was fraudulently done by spiking a 'prasad' that he offered her [Monika Sharma vs Mukesh Bhagal]..A bench of Justices KR Sriram and PK Chavan, therefore, declined to grant a decree of divorce to the woman, stating that it is difficult to believe that an educated, independent working woman in a city like Mumbai would remain silent about such an incident and not disclose the same to any friends or colleagues. "We are afraid, we cannot believe such evidence of appellant (wife) as it is difficult to accept the same to be a truthful version of the incident. It is so because as to how she readily accepted 'prasad' and ate it despite having been forcibly taken away by respondent (husband)? She was literally abducted and again brought back to the office on the following day but neither any of her colleagues or friends have come forward to depose in her favour nor there appears to be any report lodged by her with Police. Strangely, appellant remained silent and passive despite undergoing such a trauma," the bench said.The Court said that it was unfathomable as to why she did not disclose the said incident to her relatives, friends or colleagues who could have definitely taken some effective steps by approaching the Police. "Such behaviour of appellant is quite strange and cannot be said to be a natural conduct of a woman who is not only major but qualified as a Master in Science from Singhania University and serving independently in a city like Mumbai. No sane man will believe and accept her statement," the Court opined..The woman claimed that the man had sexually abused her in 2007 when she was nearly 15 years old and had even clicked some obscene photos. He threatened to make the photos viral on social media and thus she silently suffered the harassment.She claimed that since she belonged to a family with a good reputation in her hometown in Haryana, she didn't narrate her ordeal to anyone. She moved to Mumbai in 2012 but her torture didn't end. She alleged that the the man followed her in the city and insisted her to live with him. She even listed several instances in Mumbai, Rajasthan and Haryana, wherein the man allegedly abused her, assaulted her in front of others, harassed her and forced her to act as per his whims.Justifying her silence all these years and mustering courage to file a case only in 2017, she submitted: "I hail from rural background where womenfolk and their voices are stifled from birth as the slightest rumour can taint them for rest of their lives. Honour killings, rape and all kinds of crimes against women are a daily feature and families advise their daughters and womenfolk to silently face oppression. FIRs are rarely filed in cases of crimes against women, unless, there is a press coverage or political support where, Khap Panchayat's rule and their diktat goes unquestioned, and whoever agitates, are either ex-communicated or liquidated.".Taking note of her contentions, the bench said that she had made some bald allegations and had not examined any witness to corroborate her version. The Court further noted that she didn't inform about the abuse to anyone in her family."Even there is no evidence of medical examination of appellant, who alleged to have been (sic) ravished, sexually exploited and subjected to unnatural intercourse by respondent. Overall evidence of appellant is improbable, unbelievable and unacceptable. No sane man would believe and accept her testimony as it is nothing but ipsedixitism. It is quite apparent from the evidence that it is a case of inflicted insight, meaning thereby, unsolicited revelation of aspects of one's character, usually as a result of a deceitful experiment that has psychological dimensions, and especially where this results in emotional trauma," the bench observed. The sole testimony of appellant suffers from several shortcomings and is insufficient to construe that there was any force or fraud alleged to have been played upon her by respondent, the Court said..The bench further noted that the alleged fraud and forced marriage took place on December 29, 2011. Nothing prevented her from filing a petition within a year of learning that the marriage was fraud, the Court stated. Thus, it held that her case was barred under section 12 (2) of the Hindu Marriage Act and refused to grant a decree of divorce. .Advocates Firdause Irani, Bahraiz Irani and Afrin Dalal along with Irani & Co. appeared for the woman..[Read Judgment]