A marriage must be validly proved under customary law with clear and certain evidence, beyond mere cohabitation or undocumented assertions.

Judgment :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The present appeal is directed against the judgment Hand decree dated 29.12.2007 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track, Kullu (learned Appellate Court) vide which the judgment and decree dated 19.07.2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Kullu (learned Trial Court) were upheld. (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the plaintiff filed a civil suit before the learned Trial Court for seeking a declaration that defendant No.1. has no right to proclaim herself to be the legally wedded wife of the plaintiff, no marriage as per custom was solemnized between plaintiff and defendant No.1, and the document produced by the defendant is forged and fictitious, which is not binding upon the plaintiff. A consequential relief of permanent prohibitory injunction for restraining the defendants from visiting the house of the plaintiff and defendant No.1 from proclaiming herself as plaintiff’s wife was also sought. It was asserted that the defendants used to visit the house of Nimo Devi, who had an inimical relationship with the plaintiff. The defendants asked the plaintiff and his parents to solemnise a marriage between the plaintiff and defendant No. 1. The plaintiff did not accept this proposal. The defendant No.1 started proclaiming herself as the wife of the plaintiff. She also produced a document showing that a marriage was solemnised between the plaintiff and her. These claims are false. Hence, the suit was filed to seek the relief mentioned above.

3. The suit was opposed by filing a written statement taking preliminary objections regarding lack of maintainability, the suit having not been properly valued for Court fees, and the plaintiff having concealed the material facts from the Court. The contents of the plaint were denied on the merits. It was asserted that the parties are governed by the local agricultural customs of District Kullu. Defendant No.1 and the plaintiff solemnised a love marriage. The plaintiff’s parents subsequently performed a marriage between the plaintiff and defendant No.1 on 04.05.2005 as per the local custom. They put a Thipu (Dupatta) on the head of defendant No.1 before their deity and organised a feast for the villagers and their relatives. Defendant No.1 started residing with the plaintiff in his house as his wife. The plaintiff maltreated defendant No.1 and turned her out of her matrimonial home in January 2006. She made a complaint to the police. The plaintiff compromised the matter with defendant No.1 in the presence of Pradhan, Gram Panchayat Katrain and undertook to keep defendant No.1 in his house. Defendant No.2 never visited the house of Nimo Devi or the plaintiff. Therefore, it was prayed that the suit be dismissed.

4. A replication denying the contents of the written statement and affirming those of the plaint was filed.

5. The learned Trial Court framed the following issues on 03.08.2006: -

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the declaration as prayed for? OPP.

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of a permanent prohibitory injunction, as prayed for? OPP.

3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form? OPD.

4. Whether the plaintiff has concealed the material facts from the Court, if so, its
effect? OPD.

5. Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the