Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(All) 815

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar, J.
Anarkali W/O Late Rampal – Appellant
Versus
Siyawati W/O Late Rampal And Ors. – Respondents
Second Appeal No. - 237 of 2010
Decided On : 17-05-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Somesh Tripathi, Alok Kr. Misra, Manoj Kumar Shukla, Mukesh Kumar Sharma, Vinod Kr. Yadav
For the Respondent: Ankit Srivastava, Mohd. Ali, Ramesh Pandey, Sudeep Seth

A marriage is void if one party has a living spouse, and customary divorce must be proven to be legally recognized.

Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 100 - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Sections 5 and 11 - Second appeal against decree declaring respondent as legally wedded wife of deceased - Appellant claimed to be the legally wedded wife, asserting no divorce occurred - Court found no evidence of customary divorce and ruled that marriage to respondent was void due to the existence of the appellant's marriage. (Paras 1, 2, 26, 51)

(B) Customary Divorce - Requirement of proof - Custom must be pleaded and established with cogent evidence to be recognized legally - Court emphasized that mere assertions without proof do not suffice. (Paras 16, 22, 24)

(C) Appeal Maintainability - Court ruled that the appeal was maintainable despite only one decree being challenged, as both decrees were part of the same judgment. (Paras 48, 49)

Facts of the case:
The appellant claimed to be the legally wedded wife of Late Rampal, while the respondent sought recognition as his wife based on a succession certificate. The trial court dismissed the respondent's suit, but the appellate court reversed this decision.

Findings of Court:
The appellate court's ruling was set aside, reaffirming the appellant's status as the legally wedded wife and declaring the respondent's marriage void.

Issues: The main issues included the validity of the customary divorce and the maintainability of the appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the absence of proof for customary divorce invalidated the respondent's claim, and the marriage was void under the Hindu Marriage Act.

Result: Second appeal allowed; judgment of the appellate court set aside.

JUDGMENT :

Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar, J.

1. Heard, Sri Alok Kumar Mishra alongwith Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri Mohd. Ali, learned counsel for the respondent no.1 and Sri Rajnish Maurya, Advocate holding brief of Sri Ankit Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent no.2. None appeared on behalf of the respondent no.3, despite sufficient service.

2. This second appeal, under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code(hereinafter referred to as CPC), has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 05.03.2010 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No.7,Raibareli in Civil Appeal No.86/2009; Smt.Siyawati versus Smt. Anarkali and others, by means of which the appeal has been allowed and the judgment and decree dated 29.07.2009 passed by the Civil Judge(S.D.), Court No.14, Raebareli in Regular Suit No.411/2002;Siyawati versus Anarkali has been set aside and the suit of the plaintiff-respondent no.1(hereinafter referred to as the respondent no.1) has partly been decreed and the declaration has been made that the respondent no.1- Siyawati is legally wedded wife of Late Rampal son of Shiv Balak. For rest of the reliefs, the suit of the respondent no.1 has been dismissed with cost. The claim of the defendant-appellant(hereinafter referred to as the appellant) has also been dismissed with cost.

3. The husband of the appellant, Late Rampal was working on the post of peon in Baiswara P.G. College. He died-in-harness on 20.10.1999. The respondent no.1, claiming herself to be the wife of Late Rampal, obtained the succession certificate from the office of the District Magistrate,Raibareli on 25.11.1991. On the basis of the said certificate, she got compassionate appointment on 19.10.2000 in the defendant-respondent no.3 institution(hereinafter referred to as the respondent no.3). The appellant preferred Misc. Case No.76/2000;Anarkali versus Public in General for issuance of succession certificate for release of G.P.F. amount to the tune of Rs.85,642/-and the amount deposited in Saving Bank Account of her husband Late Rampal in the defendant-respondent no.2 Bank(hereinafter referred to as the respondent no.2) to the tune of Rs.5674/-, which was allowed by means of the order dated 26.11.2000. The respondent no.1 moved application under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. in the said succession suit, which was rejected on 22.12.2001. Thereafter, the respondent no.1 filed Regular Suit No.411 of 2002 for declaration to the effect that she be declared the legally wedded wife of Late Rampal and therefore entitled for the G.P.F. amount as well as the amount deposited in the saving bank account of the deceased in State Bank of India, Lalganj Branch. A further declaration was sought to the effect that order passed in Misc. case No.76/2000; Anarkali versus Public in General on 26.11.2001 is null and void alongwith consequential prayer. The appellant, after putting appearance in the suit, filed a written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. She further filed a counter claim for declaration to the effect that the compassionate appointment of the respondent no.1 on 19.12.2000 in the respondent no.3-College as wife of Late Rampal be declared null and void alongwith consequential prayer. The respondent no.3 also filed its written statement admitting that the respondent no.1 has been given appointment on compassionate ground on the basis of succession certificate issued from the District Magistrate, Raebareli. It has also been admitted that the respondent no.1 and the appellant both had applied for the compassionate appointment.

4. During pendency of the suit, it was amended, therefore the additional written statement was filed by the appellant. The replication to the written statement was filed by the respondent no.1. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, 8 issues were framed by the trial court, which are extracted here-in-below:-

okn fcUnq

1- D;k ;g ?kksf"kr fd;s tkus ;ksX; gS fd okfnuh Lo0 jke iky fuoklh xzke pkn