Marriage under Hindu law requires performance of essential ceremonies; mere documentation is insufficient to establish valid marital status.

ORDER

Per: Justice Hirdesh

Instant First Appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 has been preferred by Ashwini Kumar, legal representative (son) of original plaintiff late Brahmswaroop Sharma assailing the judgment and decree dated 02.09.2024 passed by Additional Judge to the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Gwalior in RCSHM No. 429-A/2021 [hereinafter it would be referred to as '' the Trial Court''] whereby suit filed by original plaintiff seeking a declaration that respondent is not his legally wedded wife and for permanent injunction has been dismissed.

2. A few facts for adjudication of present appeal, as narrated therein, are that original plaintiff, a 75-year-old retired Company Commander, lost his wife Pusha Devi. He has one son and two married daughters. Feeling lonely, he published an advertisement in Dainik Bhaskar newspaper seeking a bride for his son. After this advertisement, respondent contacted him and began visiting his house. Plaintiff alleges that respondent took undue advantage of his loneliness and started blackmailing him. She allegedly concealed her previous marriages and managed to obtain a fabricated marriage certificate dated 26.03.2012 from Arya Samaj Mandir, Loha Mandi, Gwalior, showing her marriage with plaintiff

3. Plaintiff asserts that respondent was already married to Ashok Sharma, as revealed during her arrest on 19.02.2013 in connection with Crime No.57 of 2013 under Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act. During her arrest, she disclosed name of Ashok Sharma, as her husband. Charge-sheet filed under Section 370(2) IPC and Sections 4 to 8 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act also mentions ''Ashok Sharma'' as her husband.

4. Plaintiff states that respondent had earlier married one Aashiq Kalbhor, son of Chandrakant Kalbhor. This marriage was dissolved on 19.07.2008 by mutual consent before the Family Court. Plaintiff contends that by giving false and misleading statements, respondent obtained a marriage certificate from the Registrar of Marriages, Municipal Corporation, Gwalior, showing a marriage with him on 26.03.2012, even though her former husband was alive. Plaintiff further alleges that respondent forged documents and photographs with malicious intention. Plaintiff points out that there is a 30-year age difference between them, he being 75 years old and respondent 45 years old. According to him, this itself indicates a preplanned conspiracy and immoral intentions behind the alleged marriage.

5. Plaintiff further alleges that respondent is in habit of blackmailing and of having more than one husband at the same time to obtain unlawful monetary benefits, including pensionary benefits. It is pleaded that since respondent’s earlier marriage was still subsisting, any subsequent marriage with him is void under Section 5 of Hindu Marriage Act.

6. Plaintiff alleges that respondent married Aashiq Kalbhor twice— first on 10.12.1991 and again on 05.07.1992 and that this marriage was dissolved only on 19.07.2008. Therefore, according to him, her marriage with him in 2012 was invalid.

7. Plaintiff seeks cancellation of alleged fake and forged marriage certificate. He seeks a declaration that respondent is not his legally wedded wife. He also seeks a permanent injunction restraining her from interfering in his personal life or claiming any right based on alleged fake marriage certificate. He further prays that alleged marriage be declared null and void.

8. Respondent denies all allegations of plaintiff. She contends that the suit is not maintainable as no notice under Section 80(2) CPC was served before filing suit. She also states that plaint does not mention date, month or year of cause of action, and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed. Respondent denies that she ever married Ashok Sharma. She states that she has never been his wife and that, plaintiff has filed no document to support this allegation.

9. Respondent asserts that plaintiff himself accepted her as his wife by mentioning her na