Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 4604 (MAD)

Suresh v. Kalarani

2012-11-06

G.RAJASURIA

body2012
Judgment :- 1. Heard the Learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The nitty-gritty, the gist and kernel of the case of the plaintiff, absolutely necessary for the disposal of the Revision would run thus: The Revision Petitioner-Suresh filed a plaint seeking the following reliefs:- “a) To pass a declaration decree that the registration deed dated 14.08.2007 is to be declared as null and void. b) The costs of the suit. c) And pass such other and suitable orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice.” 3. The cause of action as stated by the petitioner in paragraph-9 of the plaint averments, is as under:- “9. Cause of action arose on 14.08.2007 when the marriage of the plaintiff and the defendant got registered without any ceremonies at Kulathoor Sub Registrar Office and thereafter they started living mutually as husband and wife at above place of Kothanalloor Village and when the plaintiff got the information the defendant living with another man from 27.09.2010 and thereafter when the plaintiff living separately at Kothanalloor Village in Kalkulam Talk within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court which comes rightly under the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court.” Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said marriage, the petitioner has filed this Revision. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would pyramid his argument to the effect that the marriage took place, but it was not consummated, but the only thing is that the marriage document dated 14.08.2007 was got registered with the Sub-Registrar concerned. No proper marriage under the Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1892 took place at all. Hence the prayer in the suit is within the Civil Court's jurisdiction. He would rely on the decision of this Court reported in AIR 2000 MADRAS 337 in the case of Kennedy Sigamani v. Kiruba Gnanaseeli Prema. Excerpts from the said decision would run thus: “11. Other three questions could be considered together. Learned counsel for appellants submitted that parties are Christians and they are governed by Indian Christians Marriage Act. It is argued that under Section 4 of the Act, a marriage could be solemnized only if certain conditions are satisfied and even on plaint allegations, it is clear that plaintiffs have not satisfied those conditions. Learned counsel for appellants submitted that parties are Christians and they are governed by Indian Christians Marriage Act. It is argued that under Section 4 of the Act, a marriage could be solemnized only if certain conditions are satisfied and even on plaint allegations, it is clear that plaintiffs have not satisfied those conditions. Courts below were therefore not correct in declaring the status of first plaintiff as wife and second plaintiff as his child. 12. It is true that under Indian Christian Marriage Act, certain formalities are to be satisfied for marriage among Christians. It is also true that plaint does not disclose that those formalities are satisfied. First plaintiff only says that first defendant took Bible and placing it on his hands declared that she is his wife. First defendant is none other than son of a Parish Priest. First plaintiff believed the statement of first defendant holding the Bible on his hands and declaring her as wife is sufficient for a valid marriage. It is only after she became pregnant and the matter was known to other members of family, they wanted a marriage solemnized in accordance with the Act. Neither first defendant nor second defendant agreed for the same and compromise also failed.” 5. I would like to refer to Section 27 of the Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872, which runs thus: “27. Marriages when to be registered.-All parties hereafter solemnized in India between persons one or both of whom professes or profess the Christian religion, except marriages solemnized under Part V or Part VI of this Act, shall be registered in manner hereinafter prescribed.” 6. A bare reading of the aforesaid provision would highlight and spotlight that the Christian marriage could be performed not in any manner the parties may like, but only in a particular manner as contemplated under the Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872. A bare reading of the plaint would unambiguously and axiomatically makes it clear that the plaintiff and the defendant did not undergo any marriage in accordance with the Indian Christian Marriage Act. The plaint averments would govern the maintainability of the suit. As such, as of now, there is no marriage between the plaintiff and the defendant could be inferred. A bare reading of the plaint would unambiguously and axiomatically makes it clear that the plaintiff and the defendant did not undergo any marriage in accordance with the Indian Christian Marriage Act. The plaint averments would govern the maintainability of the suit. As such, as of now, there is no marriage between the plaintiff and the defendant could be inferred. It is stated that the deed dated 14.08.2007 was got registered with the Sub-Registrar and according to him, there is no bar for the Civil Court to look into the matter and make a declaration as prayed for. If at all there was any marriage which actually took place between the plaintiff and the defendant, the question of the plaintiff approaching the District Court either under Section 18 or 19 of the Divorce Act, would arise. But in this case, no such event took place at all. As per the version of the plaintiff, at the time of numbering the suit, the Court can only take into consideration the averments in the plaint and the Court cannot read anything a new into it. However, the Court at the time of numbering the plaint itself can apply Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act which is extracted hereunder: “34. Discretion of Court as to declaration of status or right.-Any person entitled to any legal character, or to any right as to any property, may institute a suit against any person denying, or interested to deny, his title to such character or right, and the Court may in its discretion make therein a declaration that he is so entitled, and the plaintiff need not in such suit ask for any further relief: Provided that no Court shall make any such declaration where the plaintiff, being able to seek further relief than a mere declaration of title, omits to do so.” 7. The prayer in the plaint is only with regard to declaration of the Registration Deed dated 14.08.2007 and nothing more. As per Order II Rule 2 of CPC r/w Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, if at all his case is a true one as per his averments, he should seek for proper declaration of his status and if he does so, the Court can consider it. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No costs.