Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 511 (MP)

Hemlata Bai v. Thakur Vyasnarayan Singh

2014-05-05

ALOK ARADHE

body2014
ORDER 1. Heard on the question of admission. This appeal is by the plaintiff. 2. Facts giving rise to filing of the appeal briefly stated are that the plaintiff filed suit inter-alia on the ground that she is legally wedded wife of defendant No.1. It was further submitted that the marriage between the plaintiff and the defendant No.1 took place in the year 1965. Out of the said wedlock two sons were born. It was pleaded that in the year 1976, the defendant No.1 assaulted the plaintiff and she was thrown out of house and was residing with her parents. It was also pleaded that in the proceeding under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the plaintiff, the defendant No.1 admitted that the plaintiff is his legally wedded wife. However, without dissolution of marriage with the plaintiff, the defendant No.1 has performed second marriage with the defendant No.2. Accordingly, the plaintiff filed the suit seeking the decree for declaration to the effect that the plaintiff is legally wedded wife of the defendant No.1. 3. The defendants No.1 and 2 filed the written statement, in which inter-alia it was pleaded that the marriage of the defendant No.1 and the plaintiff was not performed as per custom prevalent in the community and the plaintiff resided with the defendant No.1 for a while, thereafter on 11.3.1976 vide Ex.D/1, the marriage between the plaintiff and the defendant No.1 was dissolved, and the defendant No.1 was married with the defendant No.2 in the year 1977 and her name was also entered in service records of defendant No.1. 4. The trial Court decreed the suit. The aforesaid decree was reversed in appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the lower appellate Court erred in law in reversing the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. 6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the record. The lower appellate Court on meticulous appreciation of evidence on record has held that the plaintiff has led no evidence to prove that she got married with the defendant No.1 as per the custom prevalent in the community. 6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the record. The lower appellate Court on meticulous appreciation of evidence on record has held that the plaintiff has led no evidence to prove that she got married with the defendant No.1 as per the custom prevalent in the community. It was further held that the alleged admission contained in reply to application under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been misread by the trial Court as in the reply it has been stated that the marriage between the plaintiff and the defendant No.1 has been dissolved on 11.3.1976. The lower appellate Court on the basis of evidence of the plaintiff, held that it is evident that the plaintiff is living separately from the defendant No.1 since 11.3.1976 i.e. for past about 25-30 years, she did not take any action against the defendant No.1. She has further admitted that she filed the suit in order to receive amount from the defendant No.1. The lower appellate Court has found that the execution of document Ex.D/1 is duly proved and has held that the marriage of the plaintiff and the defendant No.1 was dissolved. The aforesaid finding is based on meticulous appreciation of evidence on record, which by no stretch of imagination can either be said to be perverse or based on no evidence. 7. The jurisdiction of this Court to interfere with the findings of fact is well defined by catena of decisions of Supreme Court. This Court in exercise of powers under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure can interfere with the finding of fact only if the same is shown to be perverse or based on no evidence. See. Narayanan Rajendran and another v. Lekshmy Sarojni and others (2009) 5 SCC 264 , Hafazat Hussain v. Abdul Majeed and others (2011) 7 SCC 189, Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin and another, (2012) 8 SCC 148 , D.R. Rathna Murthy v. Ramappa (2011) 1 SCC 158 , Vishwanath Agrawal v. Sarla Vishnath Agrawal, (2012) 7 SCC 288 and Vanchala Bai Raghunath Ithape (dead) by LR v. Shankar Rao Babu Rao Bhilare (dead) by LRs. and Others, (2013) 7 SCC 173 . 8. For the aforementioned reasons, no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal. The appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.