There was no misrepresentation by the wife.

The above second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 27.6.1991 rendered in A.S.No.57 of 1990 by the Court of District Judge, Nagercoil thereby confirming the judgment and decree dated 29.10.1986 rendered in O.S.No.256 of 1985 by the Court of Principal District Munsif, Padmanabhapuram.

2. Plaintiff is the appellant herein. He filed the suit in O.S.No.256 of 1985 before the trial Court against his wife, the respondent herein, for a declaration that the plaintiff and the defendant are not husband and wife and for an injunction restraining the defendant from claiming any right against the plaintiff as his wife on averments such as that he is a born Hindu and he is professing Hindu religion all along; that the defendant is a Christian belonging to C.S.I. Church; that it was misrepresented to him that the defendant is a Hindu as a result of which the marriage between himself and the defendant was solemnised on 29.10.1982 at the residence of the defendant at Kamplar, Manakarai in accordance with Hindu ceremonies and subsequent to the marriage, he came to know that the defendant is a Christian.

3. The plaintiff would further submit that a marriage under Hindu Law with Hindu rites and ceremonies is not permissible between a Christian and a Hindu; that a marriage between the Hindu and a Christian is possible only under either the Christian Marriage Act or under the Special Marriage Act; that no such marriage took place between the plaintiff and the defendant under the above said Acts; that inasmuch as the defendant is not a Hindu and the marriage ceremony was conducted in accordance with Hindu Law, the marriage between the plaintiff and the defendant is illegal and void and therefore there is no valid marriage between the plaintiff and the defendant; that a marriage between a Hindu and a Christian cannot be celebrated under the Hindu Marriage Act and hence the marriage creates no obligation between the parties and there cannot be a relationship of husband and wife in law between the plaintiff and the defendant.

4. The defendant filed a written statement thereby denying all the allegations of the plaint and further submitting that she is a born Hindu and is professing Hindu religion all along; that she studied in the C.S.I.School, Mangarai and so the school authorities had mistakenly entered her religion in the school records as C.S.I. Christian; that no fraudulent representation was made to the plaintiff as alleged in the plaint; that as both the parties are Hindus, the Hindu Marriage Act will apply to their marriage and not either the Special Marriage Act or the Christian Marriage Act; that the plaintiff and defendant lived as husband and wife and a male child by name Arun was born to them on 28.8.1983 and the plaintiff is bound to maintain the defendant and the child. On such averments, the defendant would pray to dismiss the suit with costs.

5. On such pleadings by parties, the trial Court would frame the following issues for determination:

1.Whether the defendant is a Hindu, as stated in her written statement?

2.Whether the marriage solemnised in between the parties is not valid under law since the same was not conducted properly but on misrepresentation?

3.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs sought for in the suit?

4.What relief, is the plaintiff entitled to?

Thereafter, the trial Court would conduct the trial wherein the plaintiff besides examining himself as P.W.1 for oral evidence would also mark 11 documents for documentary evidence as Exs.A.1 to A.11, Ex.A.1 dated 10.11.1962 is the Secondary School Leaving Certificate of the plaintiff; Ex.A.2 dated 20.11.1979 is the community certificate of the plaintiff, Ex.A.3 is the death certificate of the father of the plaintiff; Ex.A.4 is the xerox copy of the application of the defendant dated 20.3.1984 for the post of Junior Assistant; Ex.A.5 is the xerox copy of the secondary school leaving certificate of the defendant dated 12.3.1972; Ex.A.6 is t