The judgment establishes the principle that once the factum of marriage is proved, the onus is on the party denying the marriage to show that it was not solemnized in accordance with the Hindu Marriage Act.

The defendant is the appellant. The suit has been filed by the respondent herein, as the plaintiff in the suit, seeking relief of declaration that she is the legally wedded wife of the appellant herein. The said suit was filed in O.S. No.9 of 1994 on the file of the I Additional Sub Court, Madurai, has been decreed and being aggrieved by the same, the appellant has preferred this appeal.

2. The case of the plaintiff in a nutshell is as follows:

The plaintiff and the defendant have been living together for some time at Door No.46, S.S. Colony, Parthasarathi street, Madurai-16. Thereafter, the plaintiff got pregnant and as a result of the same, the marriage was solemnised on 13.12.1987 at Pillaiyar temple situated in Madurai Meenakshipuram. There was an exchange of garland and a chain was presented by the defendant while solemnizing the marriage. The marriage was solemnized in the presence of PW2 to PW4 and few other persons. On 21.06.1988 there was an attempt to settle the dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant since a demand was made by the defendant as dowry. On 22.05.1988, the defendant has left the plaintiff and on 06.07.1988 a male child was born to the plaintiff. However, the said child died at the time of delivery. Ex.A1 is the certificate showing the name of the defendant as the father of the child. Therefore, the present suit has been filed to declare that the plaintiff is a legally wedded wife of the defendant.

3. The case of the defendant is as follows:

The very suit has been filed with mala fide intention to extract money from the defendant. The plaintiff is elder to the defendant and the plaintiff met the defendant at his residence only twice. The allegation that a son out of the wedlock is also not true. The averments that the marriage was solemnized in the presence of PW2 to PW4, is also denied. It is also stated in the written statement that the allegation regarding the demand for dowry has no factual basis. The Trial Court has framed the following issue.

"Whether the plaintiff is a legally wedded wife of the defendant?"

4. On the side of the plaintiff, four witnesses have been examined and Ex.A1, which is the birth certificate of the child, has been marked. On the side of the defendant, he has examined himself as DW1 and marked Ex.B1 to Ex.B8 in support of his case. The Trial Court has decreed the suit by holding that the evidence of PW1 to Pw4 would clearly show that the marriage was solemnized between the plaintiff and defendant on 13.12.1987. The Trial Court has held that there are material discrepancies in the evidence of DW1 since at one place he says that he does not know the plaintiff very well and on the other hand he says that the plaintiff has taken care of him when he was young. The Trial Court has also held that Ex.A1 would clearly show the name of the defendant as the father and a finding of fact has been given that the defendant is having another name by Rajendran. The Court below has further held that the evidence of PW2 to PW4 are trustworthy and therefore, the marriage was conducted on 13.12.1987. The Court below has also held that the contention of the defendant that the plaintiff was living as a concubine of one Athimoolam has not been proved by the defendant. The statement of the defendant was that he was 10 years younger than the plaintiff, was also not proved. The further contention was that 13.12.1987 was not an auspicious day and therefore, the marriage could not be solemnized, was rejected since considering the fact that the plaintiff was already pregnant, the marriage was solemnized on that day and also in view of the fact that they have been living together already.

5. PW2 is the priest who performed the marriage on 13.12.1987 between the plaintiff and the defendant. In his chief examination he stated that the marriage was solemnized between the plaintiff and defendant at about 7.00 a.m. According to the PW2, by chanting mantras, he performed the marriage. The PW2