Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU
R.P. Sethi, J.
Lajya Devi - Appellant
Versus
Kamla Devi - Respondent
CSA No. 22/1991
Decided On : 21 May, 1992
HINDU MARRIAGE ACT - VOID MARRIAGE - JURISDICTION OF CIVIL COURT - CUSTOM - INTERPRETATION OF SECTIONS 11, 36, 91, 92 OF THE EVIDENCE ACT - SCOPE OF CAUSE OF ACTION - FRAMING OF ISSUES.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant challenged the judgments and decrees of the trial court and the appellate court, raising questions of law regarding the validity of a marriage, the interpretation of custom, the admissibility of oral evidence, the accrual of cause of action, and the validity of a party to a lis.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that a void marriage can be declared as such by a civil court without the need for a declaration during the lifetime of one of the spouses. The court also held that a custom must be ancient, certain, reasonable, and not immoral or opposed to public policy. The court further held that oral evidence can be admissible even if a document is required to be in writing, and that the cause of action accrues when the right to sue arises. Finally, the court held that a court can declare a party to a lis invalid without putting the parties to specific issues regarding the invalidity of the marriage.
Issues: 1) Whether a marriage can be declared as null and void by a civil court without its having been got so declared during the lifetime of one of the spouse? 2) What is meant by custom and how it can be proved and could a custom pleaded by a party be refused to be adjudicated if the same is not found to be ancient in nature and on the other hand being of recent origin? 3) Can oral evidence led by a party be held as inadmissible in evidence when the documentary evidence thereof has to be in possession of the opposite party and could Sections 91 & 92 of the Evidence Act be pressed into service to render oral evidence inadmissible in respect of a document which is claimed to be compulsorily required to be in writing? 4) When the cause of action shall be deemed to have accrued to a plaintiff in a suit for delaration? and 5) Can a Court declare the party of a lis invalid without putting the parties to specific issues regarding the invalidity of the marriage?
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on various provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, the Evidence Act, and judicial precedents to arrive at its decision. The court held that a void marriage is null and void from the beginning and can be treated as non-existent by both parties without the need for a decree annulling the marriage. The court also held that a custom must be ancient, certain, reasonable, and not immoral or opposed to public policy in order to be valid. The court further held that oral evidence can be admissible even if a document is required to be in writing, and that the cause of action accrues when the right to sue arises. Finally, the court held that a court can declare a party to a lis invalid without putting the parties to specific issues regarding the invalidity of the marriage.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal, holding that it did not involve any substantial questions of law.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points summarized:
Please let me know if you need further elaboration or assistance with specific legal interpretations.
1) Whether a marriage can be declared as null and void by a civil court without its having been got so declared during the life time of one of the spouse?
2) What is meant by custom and how it can be proved and could a custom pleaded by a party be refused to be adjudicated if the same is not found to be ancient in nature and on the other hand being of recent origin?
3) Can oral evidence led by a party be held as inadmissible in evidence when the documentary evidence thereof has to be in possession of the opposite party and could Sections 91 & 92 of the Evidence Act be pressed into service to render oral evidence inadmissible in respect of a document which is claimed to be compulsorily required to be in writing?
4) When the cause of action shall be deemed to have accrued to a plaintiff in a suit for delaration? and
5) Can a Court declare the party of a lis invalid without putting the parties to specific issues regarding the invalidity of the marriage?"
Some of the facts relevant for determining the questions of law formulated hereinabove are : that the respondent Kamla Devi filed a suit for declaration to the effect that she was the only legal heir entitled to inherit the estate of Inder Parkash, her husband with a prayer for directing the appellant herein not to proclaim herself as the widow of said Inder Parkash. The suit wat resisted inamly on the ground that the same was barred by time and that Kamla Devi had been divorced by said Inder Parkash in accordance with the custom prevalent in Rajouri district. The appellant claimed to be the only legally wedded wife of the deceased.
2) On the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed the following issues:
1) Whether plaintiff alone is entitled to the assets of deceased Inder Parkash and she is in possession of the assets of the deceased? OPP.
2) On the proof of Issue No. 1, whether defendant is claiming herself to be the sole heir of deceased Inder Parkash and thus makes a claim over the assets of the deceased? OPP
3) Whether a custom is prevalent in the locality by virtue of which a Hindu can divorce her wife and, if so, whether Inder Parkash had divorced the plaintiff and defendant was taken as his wife and whether parties are governed by the custom? OPD
4) Whether the suit is time barred? OPD
5) To what reliefs are the parties entitled? OPD
The trial court decreed the suit and the appeal filed by the appellant herein was also dismissed by the appellate court below.
3) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
4) A cursony glance at the pleadings of the parties and the issues framed in the case would show that except the point regarding the custom, the other points raised, in fact, do not arise in the case. There does not appear to be any substantial question of law in this case in terms of the tests laid down by this Court in Surram Singh V. Lal Chand (1987 SLJ 345) ;wherein it was held:
If a question of law finally determines the rights between the persons and is debatable in view of the authorities or that the authorities require reconsideration or the judgment has been passed completely ignoring the evidence of the parties or that the judgment has not taken into account the statutory provisions of the settled preposition of law or that there was lack of jurisdiction in the court deciding the rights of the parties or when the rights of the parties are directly and substantially affected on a point of law not finally settled by the High Court, the privy Council, Federal Court or that the judgment has been passed completely ignoring the pleadings of the parties, would be "substantial question of law" for the purpose of this section irrespective of the fact that the said substantial question of law is not of general public importance."
How
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
