IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
RSA No. 439 of 2007
Reserved on: 08.11.2017
Decided on: 25.11.2017
__
.
Urmila Devi
…..Appellant
Versus
Pradeep Kumar and another
……Respondents
__
Coram
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Chander Bhusan Barowalia, Judge.
1 Whether approved for reporting? Yes.
For the appellant : Mr. Atul Jhingan, Advocate.
For the respondents : Ms. Anu Tuli, Advocate, for
r respondent No. 1.
Chander Bhusan Barowalia, Judge
The present regular second appeal is
maintained by the appellant, who was defendant No. 2
before the learned Trial Court (hereinafter to be called as
“defendant No. 2”), laying challenge to the judgment and
decree, dated 13.06.2007, passed by learned Additional
District Judge, Fast Track Court, Shimla, H.P., in Civil Appeal
No. 18-S/13 of 2006, whereby the judgment and decree,
dated 12.10.2006, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr.
1
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
25/11/2017 23:30:20 :::HCHP
-2-
Division), Court No. 3, Shimla, H.P, in Civil Suit No. 102 of
2002/01, was upheld.
2. Briefly, the facts, which are necessary for
.
determination and adjudication of the present appeal, are
that respondent No. 1, who was the plaintiff before the
learned Trial Court (hereinafter to be called as “the
plaintiff”) instituted a suit for declaration and injunction
against the defendants, Smt. Rekha (defendant No. 1) and
Smt. Urmila (defendant No. 2), wherein it has been alleged
that the marriage between the plaintiff and defendant No.
1 was solemnized on 21.04.1995 in accordance with Hindu
rites at Village Nabhreli-Karyal Ghati, Tehsil and District
Shimla. The factum of such marriage was duly entered in
the marriage register of Gram Panchayat, Chail on
22.05.1995. It has been further averred that defendant No.
2, is falsely proclaiming herself to be the legally wedded
wife of the plaintiff and claiming maintenance, as well as
legal rights in the movable and immovable property of the
plaintiff, for which she filed a false case Under Section 125
Cr.P.C. in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Hamirpur. As per the plaintiff, he never married to
25/11/2017 23:30:20 :::HCHP
-3-
defendant No. 2 and even if, her allegation that she
married to him on 24.02.1996, is taken to be true, the
alleged second marriage between him and the defendant
.
No. 2 is void ab initio. Otherwise also, defendant No. 2 is
employed and working as Angarwari worker, under the
Child Development Project Officer, Sujanpurtira, Hamirpur,
H.P., hence not entitled to claim maintenance allowance
from him. Lastly, it has been averred that as the marriage
between the plaintiff and defendant No. 2, if any, is void,
defendant No. 2 is liable to be restrained from proclaiming
to be legally wedded wife and also from claiming any
maintenance and right in the property of the plaintiff.
3. By filing written statement, defendant No. 2
raised preliminary objections qua maintainability, estoppel,
cause of action and jurisdiction. On merits, it has been
averred that defendant No. 1 is not legally wedded wife of
the plaintiff and the certificate of marriage produced by
the plaintiff is illegal. As per defendant No. 2, she preferred
a petition against the plaintiff, under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in
the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hamirpur,
which was allowed and maintenance was awarded in her
25/11/2017 23:30:20 :::HCHP
-4-
favour. It has been averred that defendant No. 2 was
married to the plaintiff as per Hindu rites and ceremonies on
23/24.02.1996 at her parental house i.e. Village Chalokhar,
.
District Hamirpur, H.P. and after the said marriage,
defendant No. 2 and the plaintiff lived together as husband
and wife in the house of the plaintiff at Village Tanenkar,
District Hamirpur, H.P. However, in the year, 1999, the
plaintiff deceitfully left defendant No. 2 in the house of her
father and subsequently he married to defendant No. 1
illegally. It has been further averred that defendant No. 2 is
the only legally wedded wife of the plaintiff and he cannot
deny her rights that have accrued to her in consequence of
her marriage to the plaintiff. Lastly, she prayed that the suit
of the plaintiff be dismissed.
4. The learned Trial Court on 18.11.2004 framed the
following issues for determination and adjudication:
“1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the
decree of declaration to the effect that
defendant No. 1 is legally wedded wife of
the plaintiff and subsequent marriage
between the plaintiff and defendant No. 2
allegedly taken place on 24.02.1996
during the subsistence of earlier marriage
with defendant No. 1 is illegal, void ab
initio as alleged? OPP25/11/2017 23:30:20 :::HCHP
-5-
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the
relief of permanent prohibitory, as
alleged? OPP
3. Whether the suit is not maintainable as
alleged? OPD-2
4. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from
.
filing the present suit on account of his
own acts, omission and commission, as
alleged? OPD-2
5. Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to
try and entertain the present suit, as
alleged? OPD-2.
6. Whether the suit has been filed by the
plaintiff in collusion with defendant No. 1,
as alleged? OPD-2.
7. Relief.”
5. After deciding issues No. 1 2 in favour of the
plaintiff, issue No. 3 in redundant and issues No. 4, 5 6
against defendant No. 2, the suit of the plaintiff was
decreed. Subsequently, defendant No. 2 maintained an
appeal before the learned first Appellate Court, which was
dismissed and the findings of the learned Trial Court are
upheld. Hence the present regular second appeal, which
was admitted for hearing on the following substantial
questions of law:
“1. Whether the objection t;aken by the
appellant/defendant under Section 105
CPC was not appreciated by the learned
Courts below and if so, its effect?
2. Whether the objection raised by the
appellant/defendant at the time of
exhibition of document Ext. PW-4/A was not
decided by the trial Court and its effect?
25/11/2017 23:30:20 :::HCHP
-6-
3. Whether the document Ext. PW-4/A was not
proved as per the Evidence Act and the
Courts below erred in placing reliance
upon the said document while deciding
the case and if so, its effect?”
.
6. Mr. Atul Jhingan, learned counsel for the
appellant has argued that the learned Courts below have
committed grave illegality in not appreciating the
evidence, which has come on record. He has further
argued that the learned Courts below, ignoring the fact
that the plaintiff had solemnized the arrange marriage with
defendant No. 2 and he has no authority to dispute the
marriage once it was solemnized by him, have erroneously
decreed the suit of the plaintiff. On the other hand, Ms. Anu
Tuli, Advocate, for respondent No. 1 has argued that the
judgments and decrees passed by the learned Courts
below are as per law and after appreciating the evidence,
which has come on record to its true perspective, therefore,
the same are required to be upheld.
7. In order to appreciate the rival contentions of
the parties, I have gone through the record carefully.
8. In order to prove its case Sh. Pradeep Kumar
(plaintiff) has stepped into the witness box as PW-1 and
25/11/2017 23:30:20 :::HCHP
-7-
stated that he is a permanent resident of Hamirpur,
however for the last 35-36 years he is residing at Chail, as he
owns a Dhaba there. As per the plaintiff, he married to Smt.
.
Rekha (defendant No. 1) on 21.04.1995, as per Hindu rites at
Village Nabhreli Karyalghati, Tehsil and District Shimla. The
said marriage was got entered in the record of Gram
Panchayat, Chail. Mark ‘X’ (which was later on exhibited as
Ext. PW-4/A) is the certificate to this effect. He stated that
he never married to defendant No. 2 (Smt. Urmila Devi). As
per the plaintiff, defendant No. 2 instituted a false petition
against him for grant of maintenance before the Court of
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hamirpur and
maintenance to the tune of ` 400/- per month was granted
in her favour. He has further stated that defendant No. 1
(Smt. Rekha Devi) is living with him as his wife and they have
two daughters aged about five and three years and a son
aged about one year. In his cross-examination, he admitted
that petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was allowed in
favour of defendant No. 2 and his appeal has been
dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur. He
admitted himself and his sisters etc. in photographs Exts. R-1
25/11/2017 23:30:20 :::HCHP
-8-
to R-27. He feigned ignorance about the lady who has
been shown as bride in circle ‘P’ of photographs, Ext. R-1 to
R-5. He has stated that defendant No. 1, to whom he was
.
married, is not there in circle ‘P’. He has further stated that
he knows Sh. Hari Singh, the Secretary of Gram Panchayat,
Chail. He denied that he got the false record prepared with
the help of Sh. Hari Singh. He has further denied that he
married to defendant No. 2 and he used to maltreat her for
bringing insufficient dowry and left defendant No. 1 in the
house of her father.
9. PW-2 and PW-3 (S/Sh. Inder Kumar and Naresh
Kumar) have also supported the case of the plaintiff and
stated that they had attended the marriage of the plaintiff
and defendant No. 1 in the month of April, 1995. They have
further deposed that the plaintiff, defendant No. 1 and their
children are residing together at Chail.
10. PW-4 (Ms. Sunil Chauhan, Secretary, Gram
Panchayat, Chail) has brought the requisitioned record and
testified that the marriage of the plaintiff and defendant
No. 1 was entered in the record of the Panchayat on
22.05.1995. The said entry bears the signatures of the
25/11/2017 23:30:20 :::HCHP
-9-
spouses and Certificate Ext. PW-4/A is correct as per the
original record. In her cross-examination, she admitted that
Ext. PW-4/A has not been signed by her. She has stated that
.
in register, which she has brought, the column/page is blank
and the numbering in the register has been done later with
a red pen. She feigned ignorance as to by whom the
numbering of register has been done.
11. DW-1 (Smt. Rekha) has also substantiated the
case of the plaintiff and stated that from her marriage with
the plaintiff, three children were begotten out of her
wedlock. She denied that the plaintiff married to defendant
No. 2 as per Hindu rites.
12. Conversely, defendant No. 2 (Smt. Urmila Devi)
in her examination-in-chief, has substantiated the contents
of written statement filed by her, as a whole. In her cross-
examination, she feigned ignorance about the first
marriage of the plaintiff with defendant No. 1 on 21.04.1995
and their three children. She denied that when she
accompanied the plaintiff to Chail, she found that
defendant No. 1 residing there with the plaintiff as his wife
25/11/2017 23:30:20 :::HCHP
– 10 –
and due to this reason, she left Chail and went back to her
parental house.
13. DW-2/2, Sh. Gian Chand (father of defendant
.
No. 2) has deposed that marriage of the plaintiff and
defendant No. 2 was solemnized on 23.02.1996 as per Hindu
rites. In photograph, Ext. R-1, he admitted the plaintiff and
defendant No. 2 to be the bride and groom. He denied
that the marriage of the plaintiff and defendant No. 2 is
illegal. However, he has admitted that the said marriage
has not been registered in the Panchayat Register.
14. DW-2/3, Sh. Subhash Chand, has deposed that
he is a Pandit and he got the marriage of defendant No. 2
performed on 23.02.1996 with the plaintiff. In his cross-
examination, he feigned ignorance about the plaintiff’s
earlier marriage with defendant No. 1.
15. Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
provides as under:-
“7. Ceremonies for a Hindu marriage
(1) A Hindu marriage may be solemnized in
accordance with the customary rites and
ceremonies of either party thereto.
(2) Where such rites and ceremonies include
the saptpadi (that is, the taking of seven
steps by the bridegroom and the bride25/11/2017 23:30:20 :::HCHP
– 11 –
jointly before the sacred fire), the marriage
becomes complete and binding when the
seventh step is taken.
16. In the present case, both the parties are Hindus
.
and they have to perform the marriage of saptpadi. As far
as marriage, as alleged with defendant No. 1, is concerned,
the plaintiff or defendant No. 1 could not prove that their
marriage was solemnized by saptpadi, the only evidence
which the plaintiff has proved on record qua his earlier
marriage, which took place approximately three years
before the marriage with defendant No. 2, is PW-4, Ms. Sunil
Chauhan, Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Chail, who has
produced on record Certificate, Ext. PW-4/A, regarding the
marriage of the plaintiff with defendant No. 1. PW-4 further
stated that certificate was issued by the Secretary on
02.12.2000. The learned Court below while dealing with the
marriage has ignored very vital question involved in the
present case that the marriage does not complete with
registration only. Though, the registration of the marriage is
corroborative evidence, but the marriage has to be proved
by proving saptpadi and in this regard, no evidence has
25/11/2017 23:30:20 :::HCHP
– 12 –
been produced either by the plaintiff or by defendant No.
1.
17. Again at the cost of repetition, it is made clear
.
that saptpadi was to be proved by the plaintiff and
defendant No. 1 by either of the following methods:
“(a) By producing a witness, who has attended
the marriage and who could have stated
that the marriage took place around the
sacred fire and the parties has taken seven
steps, or
(b) by producing the photographs or any other
documents, showing the performance of
saptpadi, or
(c) by producing the Priest/Pandit, who was
r Instrumentality in performing saptpadi.
However, none of the aforesaid proof had been placed by
defendant No. 1 to prove saptpadi.
18. On the other hand, defendant No. 2 has proved
on record her marriage, i.e. saptpadi with the plaintiff by
producing, (a) the photographs of the marriage, not only
showing saptpadi, but all the ceremonies of marriage, (b)
the person who has attended the marriage and in whose
presence the saptpadi was performed, (c) the Priest/Pandit,
who performed the saptpadi. On these aspects, the findings
recorded by the learned Courts below, declaring the
25/11/2017 23:30:20 :::HCHP
– 13 –
marriage of the plaintiff and defendant No. 2 to be second
marriage, which in fact was their only marriage, as per
Hindu rites, are perverse.
.
19. Now coming to the question whether the
plaintiff, when married defendant No. 2 by performing
saptpadi in the house of defendant No. 2 and in the
presence of many witnesses, performed all the ceremonies,
the photographs of which are on record, can maintain a
suit for declaration by declaring the marriage with
defendant No. 2 to be void, being second marriage? This
question was also required to be considered vis-à-vis the
bona fides of the plaintiff. The plaintiff had not gone to the
Court with clean hands and suppressed many material
facts. He has only averred that he had earlier performed
the marriage with defendant No. 1, but without proving
anything on record to show that marriage was performed
as per Hindu rites, simply the statement of the Panchayat
Secretary that the marriage was registered, is no prove of
marriage. So, substantial question of law No. 1 is answered
holding that the findings recorded by the learned Courts
below are perverse and without appreciation. Similarly,
25/11/2017 23:30:20 :::HCHP
– 14 –
substantial question No. 2 is answered holding that the
exhibition of the document, Ext. PW-4/A, in nowhere proves
the marriage of the plaintiff with defendant No. 1, as the
.
marriage was required to be solemnized by performing
saptpadi as required under the Hindu law and the findings
of the learned Courts below in this regard are also perverse.
As far as, substantial question No. 3 is concerned, the same
is answered holding that even Ext. PW-4/A was not proved
by examining the person, who made the entry in the
register and further no presumption is attached that after
the registration of marriage of the plaintiff with defendant
No. 1, the marriage stands automatically proved, as the
fact of saptpadi was not considered by the learned Courts
below and they erred in placing reliance upon the said
document while deciding the case.
20. The plaintiff, who has solemnized the marriage
with defendant No. 2, after performing all the ceremonies,
including saptpadi and defendant No. 2 has proved the
same on record, making admission in cross-examination, the
plaintiff has admitted that the lady in pictures is not
defendant No. 1, though he has not clearly stated that the
25/11/2017 23:30:20 :::HCHP
– 15 –
lady in pictures is defendant No. 2, but from the evidence
on record, it is amply clear that the lady alongwith the
plaintiff in pictures is defendant No. 2, with whom the
.
plaintiff admitted the saptpadi alongwith all rituals of Hindu
marriage. The Act of the plaintiff to pray the Court for
nullifying that marriage and coming to the Court and telling
while appearing in the witness box, by making totally false
statement that the lady in the pictures is not defendant No.
2, is itself, makes this case fit to award special costs in favour
of defendant No. 2. The plaintiff has put the life of
defendant No. 2 in a miserable condition for nearly 15-16
years by marrying her and thereafter filed a false case for
nullifying the marriage on the basis of some entry in
Panchayat record, which never proves the marriage of the
plaintiff with defendant No. 1. So, defendant No. 2 is entitled
for special costs alongwith the right to prosecute the
plaintiff for special damages by way of separate suit, if she
so desires.
21. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present
appeal is allowed and the judgments and decrees, passed
by the learned Courts below are set aside. The suit of the
25/11/2017 23:30:20 :::HCHP
– 16 –
plaintiff is ordered to be dismissed with costs and the
plaintiff is held liable to pay costs of ` 5,000/- to
appellant/defendant No. 2.
.
22. With aforesaid observations, the appeal, so also
pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall stand(s)
disposed of.
(Chander Bhusan Barowalia)
Judge
25th November, 2017
(raman)
25/11/2017 23:30:20 :::HCHP