“It hurts to love someone and not be loved in return.” This is the poignant position of the plaintiff, who has been waiting to be loved by her husband, after filing the suit for declaration of her status as the wife of the defendant and for the consequential injunction.

2. Love marriage / run-away marriage between the couples inter se or between couples and parents or between couples and society are age old issues. In Indian society, still arranged marriage is the prevalent method of getting married. Still the marriage is considered to be not a relationship between two individuals but a relationship between two families. Parents often want their offspring to get married to a boy or girl of their choice. There is reluctance and opposition either by parents or by the Society, if there is intervention of caste, religion and creed and sometimes financial status. Though the parents love their offspring, yet, either out of concern and care or out of narrow considerations, they oppose such marriages. Parents believe that it is legitimate to expect the same in return for their sacrifice. Here is one such case. According to the plaintiff/wife, though the defendant/ husband was willing to accept her as his wife, still, his parents are not willing to accept her. It is claimed that she is the victim of that refusal.

3. The defendant/husband is the appellant. The plaintiff/wife, Kanagavalli filed a suit in O.S.No.370 of 2000 for declaration that she is the legally wedded wife of the defendant and also to pass an order of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from re-marrying any other girl. The suit was decreed. Challenging the same, the defendant filed the first appeal in A.S.No.32 of 2002 which was dismissed. Aggrieved over the dismissal of the first appeal, the present second appeal has been filed.

4. The second appeal was heard on the substantial question of law formulated at the time of hearing:

1. When the requirements of valid marriage in terms of Section 7- A of the Hindu Marriage Act is not proved, whether the trial Court is justified in decreeing the suit ?

2. Whether the trial Court omitted to consider the material part of the evidence of the defendant and whether the Courts below omitted to consider the important omissions in the pleadings and evidence ?

Brief Facts:

5. The plaintiff and the defendant, belonging to the same community and living in the same street, fell in love with each other. The defendant's house was next to the house of the plaintiff's uncle. During the month of June 2000, on the strength of the promise made by the defendant that he would marry the plaintiff, the plaintiff had ultimate relationship with the defendant without knowing the consequence and significance. When the defendant's parents started arranging the marriage of the defendant with somebody other than the plaintiff, the defendant informed the same to the plaintiff and suggested that both of them may go to Chennai, after getting married and stay at his uncle's residence. The plaintiff believed the words of the defendant and she went to Sundara Reddiar Rice Mill, the place at which the defendant tied the sacred 'Thali'. The marriage took place in the presence of defendant's friends on 06.09.2000 at about 9.30 p.m. Later, they travelled in a lorry to Chennai and reached the defendant's uncle's house in the early morning at 3.00 a.m. on 07.09.2000.

5.1. The entire episode was disclosed to the defendant's uncle. The defendant's parents came there at 2.00 p.m. and lambasted the plaintiff with filthy language and snatched the Thali from the neck of the plaintiff. They obtained the signature of the plaintiff in a blank paper and they took the plaintiff and dropped at her sister's house and went away. The plaintiff's parents had personal discussions with defendant's parents. But the defendant's parents did not accept the request of the plaintiff's parents. Therefore, a police complaint was preferred. Now, the defendant's parents are