L. Narasimha Reddy, J.

The petitioner in O.P.No.247 of 2002 on the file of the Family Court, Hyderabad filed this appeal, feeling aggrieved by the order, dated 27.05.2004.

The appellant married the respondent on 05.04.2001 at Balaji Bhawan (Temple), Himayathnagar, Hyderabad. According to him, he became acquainted with the respondent in the course of train journey and that acquaintance developed into a close relation and thereafter, to marriage. On 06.04.2001, the marriage was registered.

The appellant filed the O.P. under Section 12 (i) (c) of the Hindu Marriage Act with a prayer to declare the marriage between himself and the respondent as null and void abinitio. He pleaded that by the time their marriage took place, there was a subsisting marriage between the respondent on the one hand, and one Sri Y.Ramana Murthy on the other. He stated that shortly after his marriage with the respondent, he came to know about her marriage with Ramana Murthy and has immediately filed the O.P. He further pleaded that though the respondent stated that her marriage with Ramana Murthy was dissolved according to the customs prevailing in their community, the same cannot be accepted in law. With these and other relevant pleadings, he wanted the decree for declaration to the effect that their marriage is null and void.

The respondent filed a detailed counter opposing the O.P. She narrated the circumstances that led to her marriage with the appellant. According to her, she has informed the appellant well in advance about her being a divorcee from Sri Ramana Murthy. She further stated that the marriage between her and Sri Ramana Murthy was dissolved in accordance with the customs prevailing in their community and that the plea of the appellant is not correct. She has stated that hardly within one week from their marriage, the appellant was about to marry another girl and on coming to know the same, she submitted a complaint in the Police Station and having been shocked with this development, the appellant filed the present O.P. Other grounds were also pleaded.

The trial Court dismissed the O.P. through its judgment, dated 27.05.2004.

Sri Satyanarayana, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that his client was not informed by the respondent about her being a divorcee and it is only after the marriage, that he came to know about this. He submits that the plea of the respondent that the marriage between her and Ramana Murthy was dissolved in accordance with the customs cannot be accepted at all. According to him, there is no custom in the community of ‘Koppula Velama” to dissolve any marriage through divorce. He has placed reliance upon certain precedents in support of his contention that any person, who pleads the existence of custom for dissolution of marriage, must prove it to the satisfaction of the Court.

Sri C.Raghu, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the O.P or for that matter, the evidence of the appellant is silent as to the circumstances that led to gathering of information from Ramana Murthy. He submits that the respondent did not dispute that a marriage with another girl was arranged for him on 11.04.2001 and the lack of character on his part is evident from the fact that he feigned ignorance not only about the arrangement of marriage, but also printing of invitation cards. He submits that while the appellant failed miserably to prove the facts pleaded by him, the respondent has not only examined R.Ws.1 to 6 to prove the existence of custom in their community for grant of divorce, but also placed several documents in that behalf.

The trial Court framed only one point for its consideration, namely whether the appellant is entitled to get his marriage with the respondent declared as null and void?

The appellant deposed as P.W.1 and his father as P.W.2. Exs.P1 and P2 were filed. On her behalf, the respondent examined R.Ws.1 to 7 and Exs.R1 to R16 were filed.

The point for consideration be