The judgment emphasized the importance of establishing the essential religious ceremonies required for a valid Hindu marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

JUDGMENT

H. S. Madaan. J. - Briefly stated facts of the case are that plaintiff - Ashok Kumar had brought a suit against defendant - Shanti Devi seeking a declaration that defendant is not legally wedded wife of the plaintiff, in addition to that craving for grant of permanent injunction, restraining the defendant from proclaiming/declaring herself to be legally wedded wife of the plaintiff.

2. As per case of the plaintiff, he is running a flour mill at Sodal Road, Jalandhar and commands a good reputation and influence in the society. About six months prior to filing of the suit, the defendant came to the flour mill of the plaintiff to buy goods and thereafter left. After a few days, she came along with her mother to the flour mill of the plaintiff and mother of the defendant requested the plaintiff to marry her daughter. But the plaintiff told her that she should discuss the matter with his parents, who were the only persons to decide about marriage of the plaintiff. The defendant and her mother felt offended and they threatened to teach a lesson to the plaintiff. After a few days, defendant started proclaiming in the locality that she is legally wedded wife of the plaintiff and plaintiff was not keeping and maintaining her. She even tried to enter house of the plaintiff, telling the respectables in the presence of other persons that she is legally wedded wife of the plaintiff and she would reside in his house. On 12.1.1990, parents of the defendant along with some unknown persons attacked house of the plaintiff, in order to make him agree to keep the defendant in his house as his legally wedded wife. The plaintiff moved an application to the police. The police rather initiated security proceedings under Section 107/151 CrP.C. against the plaintiff. Feeling aggrieved by such attitude and conduct of the defendant and her family members, the plaintiff brought the suit in question.

3. On being given notice, the defendant appeared and filed written statement, contesting the suit, taking up preliminary objections that the suit is not maintainable; that the defendant is legally wedded wife of the plaintiff, in as much as marriage between them was solemnized on 29.11.1987 according to Hindu religious rites and ceremonies in the presence of respectables of both the parties at Baba Lal Dayal Mandir, Partap Bagh, Jalandhar City and the marriage still subsists. Dowry worth Rs.30,000/- was given at that time, however, the plaintiff was not satisfied with said dowry articles and was grumbling that refrigerator and T.V. Set and huge cash had not been given in the dowry. Therefore, the defendant was maltreated and turned out of the matrimonial home by the plaintiff on 29.4.1988. The suit has been filed by the plaintiff with malice in order to avoid his liability to pay her maintenance. According to the defendant, plaintiffs sister Kailash Rani is married with Viney Kumar son of Darshan Dayal, Depot Holder in Qazi Mohalla, Jalandhar City, who was mediator for the marriage. Father of the defendant has already died. Her mother is an aged woman. Therefore, the allegations levelled by the plaintiff against the father and mother of the defendant with regard to they having attacked his house are false and frivoulous. Refuting the remaining allegations, the defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit.

4. No replication was filed by the plaintiff.

5. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed vide order dated 28.11.1990:-

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the declaration and injunction prayed for ? OPP

2. Whether the suit, as framed, is not maintainable ?

3. Whether the suit is false and frivolous, as alleged? OPD

4. Relief.

6. Parties led evidence in support of their respective claims. In order to prove his case, plaintiff Ashok Kumar examined himself as PW-1 and further examined Harbans Lal Thakur as PW-2, Anaib Singh as PW-3, Darbari Lal as PW-4, Lakhwant Singh as PW-5 and thereafter closed his evidence.

7. On the other hand, the d