Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 834 (HP)

Chattar Kala v. Chet Ram

2012-11-16

DEV DARSHAN SUD

body2012
Judgment Dev Darshan Sud, J. This is the plaintiff’s appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge, camp at Karsog Mandi affirming the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court dismissing the suit of the plaintiff appellant. 2. The suit for declaration was instituted on the pleadings that respondent Chet Ram was married to the proforma defendant Churamani. He divorced in the year 198788 and thereafter he solemnized marriage with the plaintiff. The first wife Churamani (proforma defendant) was married to one Narainu on 20.11.1998. The relations between the plaintiff and defendant were strained when she filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance. The petition was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge and the petitioner challenging this order by this Court vide its order dated 11.1.2007. It was pleaded that the court notices that she could not produce relevant documents etc. pertaining to the divorce and in this eventuality that the cases were decided against the plaintiff. 3. The suit was resisted by the respondent. On the pleadings, the learned trial Court settled seven issues. The most important being with respect to the relationship between the plaintiff and the first defendant and the maintainability of the suit. Adverting to this first issue, the learned trial Court considers the case on two points (a) whether there was a valid divorce between the parties and (b) whether a valid marriage was solemnized between the plaintiff and the defendant. On both these issues, the learned trial Court holds against the plaintiff holding that no valid marriage in terms of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was established showing as to whether the mandatory ceremonies have been proved to have been performed. The Court rejects the submission that there has been divorce between the defendants inter se. The suit of the plaintiff was dismissed. The learned appellate Court dismissed the appeal holding that there was no record of divorce between Chet Ram and Chura Mani. The marriage between the parties inter se having been dissolved was not established. Appeal was accordingly dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records. 5. I am unable to persuade myself to hold that the plaintiff has been able to establish a valid marriage with the respondent as rightly held by the two courts below. Appeal was accordingly dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records. 5. I am unable to persuade myself to hold that the plaintiff has been able to establish a valid marriage with the respondent as rightly held by the two courts below. What I also find from the record is that CMPMO. No. 332 of 2010 titled Chatter Kala Vs. Chet Ram and another was instituted in this Court in which an application under Order 7 Rule 14(3) read with Section 151 C.P.C. for production of two documents was instituted by the appellant herein. This Court while dismissing the petition held that the application was rightly rejected by the learned trial Court and that the two documents sought to be produced i.e. certificate of the Pradhan etc., no case was made out for their production. I also find from the record that a Criminal Revision No. 30 of 2007 titled Chatter Kala Vs. Chet Ram was dismissed by this Court on 1.10.2008 in which this Court holds that the testimony and the material on the record did not establish a valid marriage between the parties. Be that as it may, the submission made on behalf of the appellant is that findings in criminal proceedings do not bind civil proceedings. This sweeping generalization does not raise any question of law for determination by this Court for the reason that it was for the plaintiff to establish a valid marriage performed in accordance with Sections 5 and 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. No evidence to establish a valid marriage between the appellant and the first respondent having been proved on the record was produced. 6. In these circumstances, I do not find any question of law much less of substantial questions of law requiring determination in this appeal which are accordingly disposed of. Appeal is dismissed.