The judgment establishes the importance of proving the existence of a recognized custom for dissolution of marriage when claiming validity of a subsequent marriage during the subsistence of a prior marriage.

JUDGMENT

Karamjit Singh, J. - The present appeal has arisen from the judgment and decree dated 21.02.2018 passed by the Additional District Judge, Patiala, vide which the petition filed by respondent-husband under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred as the HMA), for grant of decree of nullity of marriage against respondent-wife, has been allowed.

2. In brief, the facts are that the respondent-husband's paternal aunt (bua) Nirmala Devi Gupta @ Rani and her son namely Rajesh Kumar @ Pappa came to his house with a proposal of his marriage with the appellant-wife and told that the appellant-wife was unmarried and doctor by profession. On 08.02.2014, a meeting with the appellant-wife along with her parents was organized at Rishi Dhaba, Gill Chowk, Ludhiana, in which he and his other family members were present. On the assurance of appellant-wife being a doctor and unmarried lady and on pressure put on him and his family members by his parental aunt and her son, marriage between the parties was solemnized on the very same day, i.e., on 08.02.2014 in the after noon in a very simple manner without giving and taking anything. On the very first night of marriage, appellant-wife didn't allow the respondent-husband to touch her and refused to maintain any relation of husband and wife. Due to this, their marriage was not consummated. Appellant-wife told the respondent-husband that she was a divorcee and had studied upto class 10th. She also disclosed that she had got divorce from one Avtar Singh only with mutual consent in the Panchayat and no decree of divorce had been passed by any court of law. Appellant-wife also disclosed that her previous husband, i.e., Avtar Singh had filed a petition under Section 9 of the HMA in the Court of Ambala. On 08.05.2014, appellant-wife left the matrimonial house and took Rs.85,000/-with her, in the absence of the respondent-husband. During her stay in the matrimonial home, the behaviour of the appellant-wife was not good towards him and his parents. Respondent-husband had filed a complaint under Sections 494, 420, 379, 506 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patiala, for taking action against the appellant-wife, her parents, his paternal aunt (bua) Nirmala Devi Gupta @ Rani and her son namely Rajesh Kumar @ Pappa, all of whom deceived him. But no action had been taken by the police against them. Hence, petition under Section 11 of the HMA was filed, as appellant-wife performed 2nd marriage with the respondent-husband, during the subsistence of her first marriage with Avtar Singh.

3. The divorce petition was contested by the appellant-wife and she admitted the marriage but denied all the other allegations being false and frivolous by filing written statement and added that the petition was filed just to harass and defame her. It was submitted that earlier she got married with Avtar Singh but the said marriage was dissolved on 01.04.2011 by way of panchayati rajinama, i.e., customary divorce. So the first marriage came to an end and thereafter, she got re-married with respondent-Rishu Garg on 08.02.2014 and the parties cohabited at Samana but no child was born out of the said wedlock. The fact regarding dissolution of first marriage by way of customary divorce was disclosed to respondent-Rishu Garg before the solemnization of their marriage dated 08.02.2014. It was further pleaded that such type of customary divorce was prevalent and acceptable under law, in that area. The marriage between the parties was performed in a very decent manner. After the marriage, appellant-wife came to know about the illicit relations of the respondent-husband with his sister-in-law and when she objected to it, she was beaten by her husband and his parents. Finally, she was thrown out of the matrimonial home. All the efforts made by her for reconciliation had failed. It was pleaded that the petition deserves to be dismissed.

4. The respondent-hus