Back
Gauhati High Court
Suman Shyam, J.
Jagat Bora - Appellant
Versus
Bhanu Bora - Respondent
RSA No. 201 of 2003
Decided On : 22-04-2015
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 498A - Family Court Act, 1984 - Section 7 - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Section 7 – Dispute on marriage – Harrassment - Maintenance - Decreed - Seeking a declaratory decree - Plaintiff had filed Title Suit No against respondent as sole defendant, inter alia seeking a declaratory decree to effect that there is no relationship of husband and wife between plaintiff and defendant - Plaintiffs version, as narrated in plaint is that initially plaintiffs marriage was settled with defendant to be solemnized in house of the defendant - However When marriage was just about to be solemnized a dispute arose as to custom and tradition under which marriage was to be solemnized - On account of serious differences and disagreement between both sides on question of custom that was required to be followed marriage could not be solemnized - However, keeping in mind interest of defendant plaintiff had decided to take defendant along with him and returned back to his place of residence so as to perform marriage ceremony between two as per the family tradition - Despite requests made by the plaintiff she refused to come back and on the contrary defendant had instituted a case for maintenance against the plaintiff - Plaintiff stated that there was no valid marriage between them and therefore suit was instituted for the declaration as mentioned above and for other consequential reliefs – Held, plaintiff and the defendant or whether plaintiff and defendant cohabited as husband and wife are all questions of facts which have been concurrently found by both Courts below against plaintiff and in favour of the defendant - Such finding of facts have been recorded based on evidence available on record - As such, this Court does not find any justification to disturb such concurrent finding of facts recorded by Courts below - High Court cannot reappreciate evidence and record finding of fact contrary to those recorded by the Courts below - Such being the position, there is no scope for this Court to differ on finding of facts concurrently recorded by both the Courts below unless such findings are found to be perverse - Once it is held by Courts below that plaintiff has failed to prove his case by leading evidence on record and that there was marriage between the parties solemnized and they have lived together as husband and wife for some length of time - It appears that the suit itself would not lie before the Civil Court since Civil Court is not conferred with jurisdiction to try matrimonial issues covered under Section 7 of said Act - Having regard to the nature of dispute raised in the plaint, it is evident that case of plaintiff is covered - There is no merit in Second Appeal and same stands dismissed.
1. Heard Mr. S.K. Ghosh, learned counsel for the appellant. None appears for the respondent.
2. This Second Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 11.08.2003 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nagaon, in Title Appeal No. 15/2003 dismissing the appeal and affirming the judgment and decree dated 10.02.2003 in Title Suit No. 20/2001.
3. The present appellant as plaintiff had filed Title Suit No. 20/2001 against the respondent as the sole defendant, inter alia, seeking a declaratory decree to the effect that there is no relationship of husband and wife between the plaintiff and the defendant. The plaintiff's version, as narrated in the plaint, is that initially the plaintiff's marriage was settled with the defendant to be solemnized on 03.10.96 in the house of the defendant at village No. 1, Kaki. Accordingly, on 03.10.1996 the plaintiff being accompanied by his friends and relatives went to the house of the defendant for the purpose of solemnization of the marriage. The plaintiff and his party were also received by the defendant's side with lot of warmth and cordiality. However, when the marriage was just about to be solemnized a dispute arose as to the custom and tradition under which the marriage was to be solemnized. On account of serious differences and disagreement between both the sides on the question of the custom that was required to be followed the marriage could not be solemnized. However, keeping in mind the interest of the defendant, the plaintiff had decided to take the defendant along with him and returned back to his place of residence so as to perform the marriage ceremony between the two as per the family tradition. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant had accompanied him and had resided in the house of the plaintiff for quite some time before which the defendant left the house of the plaintiff without his consent and started living with her father. Despite requests made by the plaintiff she refused to come back and on the contrary the defendant had instituted a case for maintenance against the plaintiff. The plaintiff stated that there was no valid marriage between them and therefore the suit was instituted for the declaration as mentioned above and for other consequential reliefs.
4. The defendant contested the suit by filing her written statement wherein she has given a completely different version. The defendant's story is that the plaintiff had married the defendant on 03.10.96 in the house of the defendant as per the Hindu rites by performing horn, jogya and saptapadi whereafter the defendant had gone to the matrimonial house with the plaintiff. However, after a few months of cohabitation as husband and wife the plaintiff started demanding dowry of Rs. 10,000/- from the defendant asking her to bring the amount from her father. The defendant could not bear such illegal demands and the consequent torture unleashed upon her but still somehow continued to live with the plaintiff. After about nine months of the marriage the defendant was eventually driven out by the plaintiff from the matrimonial house warning her not to return without the money demanded. The defendant had also instituted proceedings under Section 498A of the IPC on account of the torture committed her by the plaintiff.
5. Whether there was any valid marriage solemnized by and between the plaintiff and the defendant on 03.10.1996 was the material issue which was framed by the trial Court as Issue No. 3. On consideration of the materials on record, the trial Court dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff by the judgment and decree dated 10.02.2003 passed in Title Suit No. 20/2001 holding that the plaintiff has not been able to prove his version that there was no valid marriage between the plaintiff and the defendant. On the contrary, the learned trial Court had recorded a finding that there was relationship of husband and wife between the plaintiff and the defendant.
6. The judg
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
