A marriage solemnized in the presence of relatives, friends, or other persons by tying of thali or exchange of garlands is valid and good in law under Section 7-A of the Hindu Marriage Act, as amended by Tamil Nadu Act 21 of 1967.

Srinivasan, J.

1. Though the appearance of Senior counsel for the appellant resulted in illuminating arguments on an interesting question of law, after going through the records, I found that the question of law did not arise in this case. I will refer to it in detail after setting out the facts which brought the appeal to this court.

2. The respondent herein filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, praying for a decree for restitution of conjugal rights. No doubt, the prayer goes a little further and seeks a direction to the appellant herein to go and live with her. It is rather curious to pray for a direction to the husband to go and live with the wife as in this State, normally, the wife goes and lives with the husband wherever he is and not the other way about. Any way, the frame of the prayer does not affect the merits of the case.

3. The averments found in the petition were that the respondent married the appellant according to the Hindu Sastric rites and customs prevailing in the community and the marriage took place in the residence of the respondent's father at Chinnathirupati on 27-1-1980. The petition went on to state that as the appellant was employed in a firm attached to the Salem steel plant, he found it convenient to live in the house of the respondent's father instead of going to his office from his native village and he had also taken a room for rent in a lodging house at Salem for facilitating higher studies in leisure time. It was stated that the respondent was pregnant by five months. It was alleged that the father and uncle of the appellant had evil intentions and were demanding gold and cash from the respondent now and then and during the absence of her father in or about the second week of February 1981, they pursuaded the appellant to leave the residence of her father and vacate the room in the lodge with a view to make him marry another girl if the respondent's father failed to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000, in cash and twenty sovereigns of gold to the appellant apart from the fifteen sovereigns given at the time of marriage. The appellant deserted the respondent from February 1981, and when she protested against his leaving her, the appellant's father beat her mercilessly. The attempt of the respondent's father to bring about a mediation failed and her only remedy was to approach the court for a decree for restitution.

4. In his counter statement, the appellant denied each and every one of the averments made in the petition. According to him, no marriage took place either in Salem or in any other place and the petition for restitution was not maintainable.

5. After the evidence was completed in the case, the respondent filed I. A. 139 of 1983 for amending the petition which was ordered on 24-3-1984. The only amendment was to add the following passage in paragraph-3 of the petition :--

"The respondent tied the thali to the petitioner and thereafter there was exchange of garlands between the respondent and petitioner in the presence of persons present at the marriage ceremony on 27-1-1980 arid, therefore, there has been valid marriage between the petitioner and the respondent according to law."

Thereafter, the appellant filed an additional counter, whereby be denied the tying of thali and exchange of garlands and contended that the amended version was an afterthought in order to suit the evidence.

6. The trial Judge rejected the oral evidence adduced by the respondent and held that the marriage invitation marked as Ex. A-3 was a fabrication. He held that the burden of proving the marriage was not discharged by the respondent and the various letters written by the appellant both before and after 27-1-1980 were not sufficient to prove the marriage. He also relied on the circumstance that a notice was issued on 14-3-1981 through a lawyer and without waiting for a reply, the petition was filed in court on 20-3-1981 itself which created a reasonable suspicion about the alleged marriage. He reli