Back
2018 Supreme(Jhk) 1088
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Aparesh Kumar Singh, Ratnaker Bhengra, JJ.
Samu Tirkey – Appellant
Versus
Chandrakala Tirkey – Respondent
Appeal from Original Decree No. 40 of 2016
Decided On : 25-07-2018
For the Appellant : Mrs. Saroj Kumari.
For the Respondents: Mrs. Mahua Palit, Mr. A.K. Lall.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to establish a valid cause of action for a suit, the importance of presenting consistent and credible evidence, and the court's reliance on the lack of evidence to support the appellant's claims.
Headnote:
Marriage - Oraon Customary Law - Hindu Customary Law - [Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 5] - The court discussed the evidence and documents presented by both parties to determine the validity of the marriages under Oraon Customary Law and Hindu Customary Law. The court found that the petitioner failed to establish a valid cause of action for the suit and denied any relationship with respondent no. 2, leading to the dismissal of the suit. The court also considered the age of the parties at the time of marriage and the contradictory statements made by the respondent no. 2. The court concluded that the appeal lacked merit and dismissed it.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant sought a declaration of the validity of his marriage with respondent no. 1 and the voidness of his alleged relationship with respondent no. 2. The court analyzed the evidence and documents presented by both parties, including marriage certificates and maintenance case records.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant failed to establish a valid cause of action for the suit and denied any relationship with respondent no. 2. The court also considered the age of the parties at the time of marriage and the contradictory statements made by the respondent no. 2. Based on these findings, the court dismissed the suit.
Issues: The issues included the maintainability of the suit, the validity of the cause of action, the marital status of the parties, and the relief sought by the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the lack of evidence to establish a valid cause of action for the suit, the denial of any relationship with respondent no. 2, and the contradictory statements made by the respondent no. 2 regarding her age at the time of marriage.
Final Decision: The court concluded that the appeal lacked merit and dismissed it.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Appellant is aggrieved by the dismissal of Original Suit (M.T.S. No. 21 of 2007) by the judgment dated 4.1.2016 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi, whereunder the Suit for declaration of his marriage with respondent No. 1 as valid and further to declare his alleged relationship with respondent No. 2 as void ab initio, has been dismissed.
3. Plaintiff/appellant pleaded before the learned family court that petitioner and both the respondents are members of the Scheduled Tribe community and they are governed by Oraon Customary Law. They are also governed by Hindu customary Law for the purposes of marriage and other social meets. Marriage with respondent no. 1 was solemnized on 8.2.1992 as per Hindu rites and customs, out of which, five children named therein have been born. The name of respondent no. 1 is entered, as nominee, in his service record under the Life Insurance Corporation. His marriage with respondent no. 1 was registered on 24.5.2006 vide Certificate No. 44 of 2006. He alleges that suddenly he received a notice of Maintenance Case no. 77 of 1992 filed by respondent no. 2, u/s 125 Cr.P.C. claiming herself to be his wife. She claimed her marriage with him in the year 1986 and birth of a female child on 11.10.1992. Petitioner denied the claim but learned judicial magistrate, Ranchi by order dated 3.9.1997 allowed the maintenance case. Criminal revision preferred by him was dismissed with modification of quantum of maintenance by the 5th Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi. He stated that in Oraon community, marriage is not solemnized at the age of 8 years for the girl and 14 years for the boy. As per respondent no. 2’s statement, she was only 8 years of age at the time of the marriage. He denied the marriage or birth of the child out of any wedlock with her. He further pleaded that on the application of respondent no. 2, the learned Family Court has attached his salary and directed the employer to deduct Rs. 5,000/- per month. He filed W.P. (C) No. 5407 of 2006 before this Court, which was dismissed as withdrawn on 5.12.2006. He pleaded that respondent no. 1 is his legally married wife and there is no relationship with respondent no. 2. As such he sought declaration that there is no relationship between him and respondent no. 2 and that it is void ab initio.
4. Respondent no. 1 appeared on notice but did not contest the case and neither filed any written statement. Respondent no. 2, however, filed a detailed written statement. She pleaded that Suit is not maintainable and suffers from non-joinder of necessary parties. She further pleaded that she was married with petitioner and a girl child namely Hira Tirkey was born out of the wedlock. In Maintenance Case no. 77 of 1992 u/s 125 of the Cr.P.C. the learned magistrate allowed Rs. 750/- as maintenance. The criminal revision preferred by the petitioner was dismissed with modification of the quantum to Rs. 650/- per month. She denied marriage of petitioner with respondent no. 1. She further stated that the present suit is filed in the year 2007, though the maintenance was filed by her in 1992 wherein maintenance was allowed against him. All documents pertaining to marriage of respondent no. 1 are manufactured and frivolous. She denied that the petitioner was blessed with five children out of the marriage with respondent no. 1. If he had done so, he is liable for the offence u/s 494 IPC. She further stated that if the petitioner claims to have solemnized marriage with respondent no. 1 on 8.2.1992 he has got it registered in the year 2006 only. In the proceedings u/s 125 of the Cr.P.C. he never averred that he had solemnized marriage with the respondent no. 1 on 8.2.1992. Respondent no. 1 also never appeared as witness to support his case in the said proceeding. She prayed that petitioner
