A petition for nullity of marriage under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act can only be filed during the lifetime of the spouse, as per the amendment made by Act 68 of 1976.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgement of the learned Additional District Judge, Faridkot, dismissing the petition filed under Ss.11 and 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act by Gurcharan Kaur against her husband Ram Chand. In her petition, Gurcharan Kaur averred that her marriage with Ram Ghand took place in the month of Maggar in the year 1972 at village Lopon. Thereafter, they lived as husband and wife but no issue was born. It was after that the marriage that she came to know that Ram Chand had two wives, namely, Nachhitar Kaur and Bhagwan Kaur living at the time of the marriage in question. As such, her marriage with Ram Chand be declared a nullity. Under Section 25 of the Act, Rs. 20,000/- were claimed as alimony.

2. In his written statement, Ram Chand opposed the petition and took up the plea that the marriage was not solemnized according to customary rites and the fact that he had two wives living was known to Gurcharan Kaur before the marriage.

3. The pleadings of the parties gave rise to the following issues :-

1. Whether the marriage between the parties was solemnised according to customary rites of the parties ? If not, its effect ? O.P.P.

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a decree for nullity of marriage as prayed ? O.P.P.

3. To what amount, if any, is the petitioner entitled as alimony ? O.P.P.

4.Relief. The learned Additional District Judge decided all the issues against Gurcharan Kaur and dismissed the petition.

4. Learned counsel for Gurcharan Kaur first assailed the finding of the learned Additional District Judge on Issue No. 1. The contention raised was that the learned Additional District Judge approached the case entirely from a wrong angle and thus arrived at an erroneous conclusion against Gurcharan Kaur to the effect that no marriage at all took place between the parties. Support to the contention was sought from the pleadings of the parties themselves. In Paragraph No. 1 of the petition, Gurcharan Kaur averred :

"That a marriage was solemnised between the parties after the commencement of the Hindu Marriage Act in the month of Maggar in the year 1972 at village Lopon. An affidavit to that effect is filed herewith."

Ram Chand in his written statement made an admission in the following way :

"That para No. 1 of the petition is correct although marriage took place but it was not solemnised according to customary rites, ceremonies of parties; Amar Singh, Udha Singh are witnesses to this effect."

Reference was then made to Paragraph No. 3 of the petition and written statement. Para. 3 of the petition reads :-

"That after the marriage the parties lived as husband and wife at village Mitwani and cohabited together as husband and wife at that village. No issue was born out of this wedlock."

In Para. 3 of the written statement, Ram Chand stated :-

"That para No. 3 of petition is correct." Learned counsel for Gurcharan Kaur rightly urged that Ram Chand having clearly admitted the factum of marriage, the learned Additional District Judge gravely erred in holding that no marriage in fact took place. The only question to be decided under Issue No. 1 was whether the marriage between the parties was solemnised according to the customary rites of the parties. To prove this issue, Gurcharan Kaur examined A.W. 2 Mukhtiar Singh, Sarpanch of village Lopon who testified that the marriage of the parties took place in his presence. Anand Karaj ceremony was performed and four lawans were taken. With respect to the performance of the marriage, nothing could be brought out in his cross-examination to discredit this witness. The next important witness relied on by Gurcharan Kaur was A.W. 4 Babu Singh Granthi who testified about the Anand Karaj ceremony. He also deposed that four lawans were taken. The learned Additional District Judge erred in disbelieving this witness on the ground that he did not identify the respondent notwithstanding that the witness clearly stated, "the petitioner was married to the respond