##PAGE1##

AD – 12

Ct No.16

12.05.2026

(SSS)

SA 41 of 2025

with

CAN 1 of 2022

Smt. Sabitri Lohar

Vs.

Phelaram Lohar and Ors.

Mr. Sibashis Ghosh,

Mr. Sudipta Dasgupta,

Mr. Arka Nandi,

Ms. Suryatapa Das,

Mr. Rithik Basu

…..For the appellant.

Mr. Debrup Chowdhury,

Mr. Arkaprabha Roy

….For the respondents.

1. The present appeal has been preferred against

a judgment of reversal.

2. The plaintiff/appellant filed a suit for

declaration that she was the legally married wife

of one Shibram Lohar, since deceased, and for

consequential reliefs relating to the retiral benefits

of the said Shibram.

3. The learned Trial Judge considered the

evidence of the parties and came to the conclusion

that there were discrepancies in the versions of

the defendants’ witnesses regarding the actual age

of the defendants/respondents. It was further

observed, more crucially, that at the time of

2

alleged marriage of defendant no. 1/respondent,

she was of the age of 10 years. Therefore, it was

held that the marriage between the defendant no.

1/respondent and the deceased Shibram was in

contravention of the statutory provision of Section

5(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 which

suggests that during the solemnization of the

Hindu marriage, the bride-groom ought to have

completed the age of 21 years and the bride 18

years. It was further observed that violation of the

provision of law does not declare marriage as void

but as voidable and the same can be regularized.

However, thereafter, proceeding on the premise of

alleged violation of the Child Marriage Restraint

Act, 1929, the learned Trial Judge held that the

said marriage was invalid.

4. The First Appellate Court reversed such

findings on a detailed consideration of the

evidence. The learned First Appellate Judge, inter

alia, considered that the defendant no. 1, as DW1,

categorically asserted in her oral evidence that

she was married to Shibram on July 3, 1970 and

from the said wedlock, a son and a daughter were

born, namely Felaram and Laxmi. Furthermore, it

was corroborated in the evidence of the

defendants’ witnesses that Nandalal was the

barber and Jyoti Bamun was the priest of the

3

marriage, both of whom were dead as per DW3.

DW4, an independent witness of the locality,

stated in his evidence that all formalities, rites

and customs, including Saptapadi, were

performed in the marriage between Shibram and

Latika, the defendant no. 1/respondent.

5. Thus, the First Appellate Court considered the

entire evidence and came to the conclusion that

the marriage between defendant no. 1 and

Shibram was conclusively proved by oral evidence.

6. The First Appellate Court also reversed the

finding of the learned Trial Judge to the effect that

the marriage was invalid.

7. Although the appellant argues that the

defendant no. 1 failed to prove her marriage with

Shibram by corroborative evidence and that the

registration certificate of the purported marriage

of the plaintiff/appellant ought to have been

considered, in a Hindu marriage, it is well-settled,

although registration certificate creates a

presumption of the marriage, the same is

rebuttable. A Hindu marriage, to be conclusive,

does not require a registration certificate, which is

only a proof of marriage, but the performance of

Saptapadi and other rituals as per Hindu rites

and customs, as enumerated in the Hindu

Marriage Act, 1955. Since the First Appellate

4

Court accepted the evidence in respect of the

marriage with defendant no. 1/respondent with

Shibram on the basis of the defendants’ witnesss’

versions, which exercise was not done by the

learned Trial Judge, who proceeded on the basis

of irrelevant factors such as the minor age

discrepancies of the defendants as well as on the

patently erroneous presumption that the marriage

between the parties was invalid in terms of the

Chid Marriage Restraint Act, which statute has no

bearing on the validity of a Hindu marriage, we

find that there was no illegality or legal error in

the judgment of the First Appellate Court.

8. It is to be noted, as also considered by the

learned Firs