Back
2017 Supreme(HP) 881
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J.
Urmila Devi – Appellant
Versus
Pradeep Kumar and another – Respondents
RSA No. 439 of 2007
Decided On : 25-11-2017
For the Appellant :Mr. Atul Jhingan, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Ms. Anu Tuli, Advocate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of proving saptpadi for a valid Hindu marriage and the inadequacy of registration alone to establish a valid marriage.
Headnote:
Hindu Marriage Act - Validity of Marriage - Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - [Hindu Marriage Act] - [Section 7] - The court discussed the validity of marriage under Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. It highlighted the requirement of solemnizing marriage with customary rites and ceremonies and the significance of saptpadi in completing the marriage. The court emphasized the need for proof of saptpadi and the inadequacy of registration alone to establish a valid marriage. The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove the saptpadi for his first marriage, while the defendant No. 2 provided evidence of saptpadi for her marriage with the plaintiff. The court held the findings of the lower courts as perverse and set aside the judgments and decrees, dismissing the plaintiff's suit and awarding costs to defendant No. 2.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and injunction against defendant No. 2, claiming that his marriage with defendant No. 2 was void and that she was not entitled to maintenance or rights in his property. Defendant No. 2 contested the suit, asserting that she was the legally wedded wife of the plaintiff and entitled to her rights. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, but defendant No. 2's appeal was dismissed, leading to the present second appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove the saptpadi for his first marriage, while defendant No. 2 provided evidence of saptpadi for her marriage with the plaintiff. The court held the findings of the lower courts as perverse and set aside the judgments and decrees, dismissing the plaintiff's suit and awarding costs to defendant No. 2.
Issues: The issues included the entitlement of the plaintiff for declaration and relief of permanent prohibitory, maintainability of the suit, estoppel, jurisdiction, and collusion with defendant No. 1.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the requirement of proving saptpadi for a valid Hindu marriage and highlighted the inadequacy of registration alone to establish a valid marriage. It found that the plaintiff failed to prove the saptpadi for his first marriage, while defendant No. 2 provided evidence of saptpadi for her marriage with the plaintiff.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgments and decrees of the lower courts, dismissed the plaintiff's suit, and held the plaintiff liable to pay costs to defendant No. 2.
Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J.
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. 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 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 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 subsisten
