A valid Hindu marriage requires the performance of essential ceremonies as prescribed by Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; mere cohabitation or social perception is insufficient to establish marital status, especially when a prior subsisting marriage remains undissolved.

This Court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice K. Lakshman)

Heard Mrs. Nandita Guha, learned counsel for the appellant.

None appears for respondent.

2. This appeal is filed by the appellant - wife aggrieved by the order dated 04.05.2024 passed in OP No.803 of 2005 by the learned Family Court – cum – XIII Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

3. The appellant – wife filed the aforesaid OP No.803 of 2005 under Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (for short, ‘the Act, 1984’) and Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, (for short, ‘the Act, 1955’) initially against respondent No.1 seeking a declaration that she is his wife and a direction to him to join her conjugal society with the following contentions:-

i. The appellant and 1st respondent are Hindus by religion. Their marriage was solemnized on 06.02.1991 by a reputed purohit. It was love marriage.

ii. After the marriage, she joined marital life and the marriage was consummated.

iii. She is a Naturapathy Doctor. The 1st respondent – husband was a Superintending Engineer. He used to come to Chennai once or twice in a month and stay with the appellant at her parents' house happily.

iv. Both of them maintained joint savings bank accounts in MCCC in Chennai and in Vijay Bank Malakpet branch.

v. After retirement, the 1st respondent reduced his visits to Chennai and he used to visit her once in three months or half an year. On 06.03.2000, he took the appellant - wife to Hyderabad, where he was having own house bearing H.No.16-2-674, at Judges colony, Malakpet, Hyderabad and started living in the said house.

vi. During the census of 2001, he got the appellant’s name and his name entered in the electoral role of Malakpet constituency. During her stay at Hyderabad, she came to know that in past, he was living with some lady, who deserted him within six months and thereafter, he kept another lady, who had also left for USA, due to harassment and ill-treatment by him.

vii. Since February 2004, he started harassing the appellant on petty issues.

viii. He used to instigate his maid servant, her son-in-law and others saying that she is additional burden to him as he is a pensioner. He used to abuse her in filthy language for nothing.

ix. On 06.02.2004, he necked her out of the house. Since then, she resided in a separate house. He got her abused by maid servant in filthy language, for which she lodged a complaint with the Police, Chadharghat police station. The police under the influence of respondent, advised both of them to solve the matter amicably. But he did not change his attitude.

x. He forcibly got her signature on some paper.

xi. She is ready to join him.

4. With the said contentions, the appellant – wife sought to declare her as wife of the 1st respondent and direct him to allow her to conjugal society.

5. Opposing the said allegations, the respondent filed counter contending as follows:-

i. He never married the appellant, much less on 06.02.1991. The documents relied upon by her are not proving their marriage.

ii. When the marriage is not proved, the question of restitution of conjugal rights does not arise.

iii. He worked as Executive Engineer at Rajhmundry from 1978 to 1981. During the said period, he resided with his wife Smt. Usha Rani i.e. 2nd respondent and three children by names Radha Rani, Padma Rani and Naga Rani, at Dhanavaipet