Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
R. VIJAYAKUMAR, J.
Kalidoss & Another - Appellant
Versus
Dhanalakshmi - Respondent
S.A. No. 2141 of 2002
Decided On : 19-01-2022
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 100 - Order 9 Rule 9 - Hindu Marriage Act - Section 7A - Registered marriage - Agreement of marriage - Proof of marriage - Whether lower appellant Court is justified in holding that a subsequent marriage celebrated on basis of an agreement of marriage will prevail over marriage registered under Section 7A of Hindu Marriage Act - Whether lower appellate court justified in relying on a birth certificate of a child as a conclusive proof to prove the validity of marriage alleged to be conducted on basis of an agreement of marriage in absence of any independent witnesses to establish same - Whether lower appellate Court justified in rendering a finding in respect of marriage of second respondent without deciding validity of marriage alleged to be celebrated between plaintiff and first defendant - Whether lower appellate Court justified in holding a registered marriage between spouse as null and void for want of evidence to prove that they are living together – Held, First Appellate Court is not justified in holding that marriage between plaintiff and first defendant on 21.01.1993 is a valid marriage, in view of fact that first defendant has got married to second defendant even on 12.01.1992 and got it registered on 18.01.1993 - First Appellate Court was not justified in relying upon birth certificate which is just a proof of date of birth and paternity of the child. It can never be considered to be proof of marriage between parents whose names are reflected in birth certificate - Entire burden is upon plaintiff to prove marriage on the basis of independent oral and documentary evidence and hence, First Appellate Court had erred in not relying upon marriage agreement - First Appellate Court had erred in going into issue of validity of marriage between first defendant and the second defendant instead of arriving at a finding with regard to validity of marriage between plaintiff and first defendant. First Appellate Court is not justified in rendering any finding with regard to validity of marriage between defendants - First defendant and second defendant got married on 12.11.1992 and same has been registered on 18.01.1993. There is no pleadings on side of plaintiff alleging that without conducting a marriage, same has been registered before Sub Registrar Office. Hence, findings of First Appellate Court that marriage registration will not prove marriage is beyond scope of pleadings and hence, liable to be set aside - Second appeal is allowed.
Understood. Please provide the legal document within
JUDGMENT :
Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of C.P.C, against the judgment and decree dated 14.12.1999 made in A.S.No.60 of 1998 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Tenkasi, reversing the judgment and decree dated 19.02.1998 made in O.S.No.19 of 1997 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Sengottai.
1. The defendants are the appellants herein.
2. The plaintiff filed O.S.No.19 of 1997 before the District Munsif Court, Sengottai for a declaration that she is the legally wedded wife of the first defendant and for a consequential relief of injunction as against the second defendant that she should not interfere with the peaceful marital life of the plaintiff. The suit was dismissed by the trail Court. The plaintiff filed A.S.No.60 of 1998 before the Principal Subordinate Court, Tenkasi. The learned Subordinate Judge was pleased to allow the appeal and decreed the suit as prayed for. As against the same, the present second appeal has been filed by the defendants.
3. The plaintiff had contended that she is the relative of the first defendant. The plaintiff and the first defendant were in love with each other and they were living as husband and wife for nearly 6 years prior to January 1993. Since the said fact came to the knowledge of the villagers, they have celebrated the marriage of the plaintiff with the first defendant on 21.01.1993. Out of the said wedlock, the plaintiff has given birth to a female child on 15.11.1994. The plaintiff further contended that the second defendant claiming to be a wife of the first defendant, had filed O.S.No.128 of 1994 before the District Munsif Court, Sengottai for a declaration that she is the legally wedded wife of the first defendant and for consequential injunction. The said suit was dismissed for default. According to the plaintiff, prior to the marriage on 21.01.1993, an agreement was entered into on 15.02.1992 between the plaintiff and the first defendant wherein both of them have signed and many villagers have also signed in the said agreement. Only with a view to prevent the celebration of the marriage of the plaintiff with the first defendant, the second defendant had filed O.S.No.128 of 1994. According to the plaintiff, she is residing in the matrimonial house of the first defendant along with the child. The plaintiff had further contended that since O.S.No.128 of 1994 has been dismissed for default, the second defendant cannot continue to contend that she is the legally wedded wife of the first defendant.
4. The defendants 1 and 2 have filed a written statement contending that the first defendant got married to the second defendant on 12.01.1992 and the said marriage was registered before the Uthumalai Sub Registrar Office on 18.01.1993. Since the second defendant was pregnant, she could not pursue O.S.No.128 of 1994 and hence, the same was dismissed for default. The defendants further contended that the first defendant did not get married to the plaintiff as contended by the plaintiff. They further contended that the plaintiff has not pleaded about the date and place of marriage and all the averments in the plaint are utter falsehood.
5. The trial Court held that the dismissal of O.S.No.128 of 1994 will not bar the second defendant from contending that she is the legally wedded wife in defending the present suit. The trial Court also found that the agreement dated 21.01.1993 said to have been executed in the presence of the villagers does not evince the confidence of the Court, in view of the many discrepancies with regard to the dates found in the said document. The trial Court also found that the plaintiff has not independently proved her marriage with the first defendant except producing Exhibit A4 agreement. The trial Court also held that the plaintiff has not examined either her parents or the first defendant's parents to establish that the marriage had taken place on 21.01.1993. The birth certificate produced by the plaintiff of her daughter as Exhibit
SupremeToday
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on valid evidence, such as Marriage Certificates and witness testimony, to establish the validity of a marriage. The judgment also emp....
Burden to prove the marriage was on the plaintiff alone particularly when the plaintiff denied the marriage with the defendant. In the counter suit also, the plaintiff who was the defendant therein d....
The burden of proof lies on the party asserting a legal status, and without sufficient evidence, claims regarding marital status cannot be upheld in court.
Restitution of conjugal rights – If photographs are available, they require a non-biased approach for their consideration.
Marriage under Hindu law requires performance of essential ceremonies; mere documentation is insufficient to establish valid marital status.
The nomination in the service register and the sufficiency of evidence to prove marriage were the central legal points established in the judgment.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
