S. Noorjahan vs J. Thomas Stalin - 2022 Supreme(Mad) 428

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(Mad) 428

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
V.Bhavani Subbaroyan, J.
S. Noorjahan – Appellant
Versus
J. Thomas Stalin and ors. – Respondents
S.A(MD)No.440 of 2011
Decided On : 01-02-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr.K.Guhan
For the Respondent: Mr.R.Rajaraman

Headnote:
Special Marriage Act, 1954 - Section 6(3) – Converting to Muslim religion – Cancellation of marriage certificate -Whether judgment and decree of first appellate Court are sustainable inasmuch as they are perverse and contrary to material on record and based on misreading of evidence and documents - Appellant as plaintiff has instituted a suit in O.S on the file of trial Court for mandatory injunction directing the second defendant to cancel marriage application given onto pass a decree for permanent injunction proceeding with solemnization of any marriage of plaintiff with first defendant second defendant Special Marriage Act, 1954 wherein respondents have been shown as defendants - In plaint it is averred that plaintiff and first defendant were working as Guest Lecturers and both of them loved each other and they decided to marry - Both agreed to give a joint application to solemnize the marriage at form and procedure as contemplated provisions of Special Marriage Act, 1954 as amended - It was also agreed by first defendant that within spell of days he will convert himself to Muslim religion - On assurance and undertaking given by first defendant to plaintiff they jointly filed a form for marriage to be performed as per procedure Special Marriage Act, 1954, as amended - They have submitted same before Marriage Officer for conducting Special Marriage Sub-Registration District Park at West Main Street on - Plaintiff and first respondent went to Registrar Office and also had signed relevant documents. Para 29.30.
Finding of the Court:
Trial Court has correctly rendered Judgment but first Appellate Court has erroneously allowed first Appeal - SFirst Appellate Court has not analysed deposition of D.W.1 wherein it has been clearly found that second respondent has no got no authority to conduct marriage - As suit is filed only for permanent injunction District Munsif has taken same on file but first defendant failed to appear before trial Court who was set ex-parte and then he filed an appeal and without letting in any evidence first Appellate Court has believed his words in grounds of appeal and decided issue against plaintiff has to be set aside - Further first defendant has not appeared before trial Court and proper relief has been sought for by plaintiff and accordingly this Court is of view that already marriage has not been solemnized when there was no proper evidence produced by defendants to prove that there was a valid marriage taken place and marriage was consummated - Defendants were not in a position to state that as to when second defendant has sent application details to Sub-Registrar Office as plaintiff is residing.
Result: Second Appeal is allowed.

JUDGMENT :

This second appeal has been directed against the Judgment and decree, dated 19.11.2009 passed in A.S.No.16 of 2009, by the Additional Sub-Court, Thanjavur, wherein, the Judgment and decree, dated 23.12.2008 passed in O.S.No.195 of 2007 by the District Munsif Court, Thanjavur, are reversed.

2. The appellant herein as plaintiff has instituted a suit in O.S.No.195 of 2007 on the file of the trial Court for mandatory injunction directing the second defendant to cancel the marriage application given on 23.02.2007 and to pass a decree for permanent injunction proceeding with the solemnization of any marriage of the plaintiff with the first defendant under the second defendant under the Special Marriage Act, 1954, wherein, the respondents have been shown as the defendants.

3. In the plaint, it is averred that the plaintiff and the first defendant were working as Guest Lecturers and both of them loved each other and they decided to marry. Both agreed to give a joint application to solemnize the marriage at Thanjavur in the form and procedure as contemplated under the provisions of the Special Marriage Act, 1954, as amended. It was also agreed by the first defendant that within the spell of 90 days, he will convert himself to Muslim religion. On the assurance and the undertaking given by the first defendant to the plaintiff, they jointly filed a form for marriage to be performed as per the procedure under the Special Marriage Act, 1954, as amended. They have submitted the same before the Marriage Officer for conducting the Special Marriage, Thanjavur Sub-Registration District, Sivagangai Park at West Main Street on 23.02.2007. On 03.04.2007, the plaintiff and the first respondent went to the Registrar Office and also had signed the relevant documents. At that time, the plaintiff approached the first defendant about his conversion to Muslim Religion. Inspite of repeated oral requests made by the plaintiff, the first defendant gave evasive reply. On 30.04.2007, the plaintiff was informed by her family friends at Mannargudi that notice of the intended marriage of the plaintiff and the first defendant was published in Marriage Form No.10 was affixed in the notice board at Sub- Registrar's Office, Mannargudi. In that notice, it is mentioned that the marriage between the plaintiff and the first respondent is going to be solemnized under the Special Marriage Act, 1954 within three calender months. From the date of application, dated 23.02.2007, 90 days comes to an end on 23.05.2007, which is the last date. The appellant again phoned the first defendant about his conversion to Muslim Religion, but the first defendant was hesitating and not ready to convert himself to Muslim Religion. The plaintiff, on 30.04.2007, had sent a registered post to the Marriage Registrar, Thanjavur and also sent a copy of the same to the first defendant informing him to cancel the registration of marriage application, dated 23.02.2007. The said notices were acknowledged by the respondents. The defendants hurriedly made arrangements to somehow or other, by other ways and means to register the marriage without adopting any procedure as contemplated under the Special Marriage Act, 1954. Hence, the plaintiff has filed the above suit for the relief stated supra.

4. In the written statement filed on the side of the first defendant, the first defendant denied the averments made in the plaint and contended that after marriage, the plaintiff and the first respondent are living together and the marriage got consummated and prayed for dismissal of the suit.

5. In the written statement filed on the side of the second defendant, the second defendant stated that he has acted only as per the provisions of the Special Marriage Act and he has not violated any of the provisions of the Act and prayed for dismissal of the suit.

6. Before the trial Court, on the side of the plaintiff, the plaintiff examined herself as P.W.1 and Exs.A1 to A4 were marked. On the side of the defendant