Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 2151 (MAD)

M. Gomethagan v. Anjalidevi

2022-07-15

P.T.ASHA

body2022
JUDGMENT : (Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of C.P.C against the Judgment and Decree dated 26.08.2019 in A.S.No.8 of 2015 passed by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Tindivanam, dismissing the appeal and confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 26.02.2015 in O.S.No.76 of 2008 passed by the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Vanur, dismissing the suit.) The unsuccessful plaintiff before the Court below is the appellant before this Court. The parties, for the ease of understanding, is referred in the same rank as before the Trial Court. 2. The Second Appeal arises out of a suit O.S.No.76 of 2008 on the file of the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Vanur. The above suit was filed by the appellant herein for declaration that the marriage registered in Serial number 329 of the year 2006 with Marriage Registrar Office, ORB, Cuddalore-1 is null and void. It is the case of the plaintiff that he is working as a labour contractor in Aurofood Pvt. Ltd., and the defendant was his colleague, they had developed a friendship and the defendant proposed marriage to the plaintiff. Though initially the plaintiff had an idea of marrying the defendant later he dropped the idea since, he had an elder brother and a younger sister to get married. However, the defendant tried to convince him by stating that they could enter into a formal registration of their marriage to ensure that they will get married in future. It is his case that he is not able to withstand the pressure and had therefore gone to the registrar-s office at Cuddalore along with the defendant to enquire about the procedure for registering the marriage. The document writer had arranged for everything and they were asked to subscribe their signatures on the documents shown to them in the office of the marriage Registrar, ORB, Cuddalore. The document would show that the plaintiff and the defendant did not know the contents of what they were signing. The plaintiff applied for registration copy of certificate on 15.07.2008 and only then he came to know that the plaintiff had married the defendant. It is the case of the plaintiff that such marriage has not been solemnized as stated in the marriage certificate, the name of the persons mentioned in the marriage certificate as witnesses were fictitious characters. The plaintiff applied for registration copy of certificate on 15.07.2008 and only then he came to know that the plaintiff had married the defendant. It is the case of the plaintiff that such marriage has not been solemnized as stated in the marriage certificate, the name of the persons mentioned in the marriage certificate as witnesses were fictitious characters. The plaintiff would submit that they had gone to the Registrar Office only to gather the details required for registering the marriage. The plaintiff would submit that the parties have been living separately from the date of the alleged marriage and the marriage was never given effect to. Taking advantage of the registration of marriage, the defendant held out threats to the plaintiff to compel him to marry her unmindful of the family conditions of the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff had come forward with the suit in question. 3. The defendant had filed the written statement inter-alia denying the various allegations contained in the plaint and she has stated that the registration was done with the full knowledge and consent of the plaintiff. It is her case that she and the plaintiff had fallen in love with each other and had been living together even before the registration of the marriage. The plaintiff had deliberately suppressed this fact in his plaint. The plaintiff had promised the defendant that he would marry her and none else. It is her contention that the marriage ceremony had taken place in full public view and the same was registered on 27.04.2006 with the consent of both spouses. The appellant is now trying to wriggle out of the marriage. She therefore sought for dismissal of the suit. 4. The trial Court on considering the evidence framed the following issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff can claim to declare the marriage registered in the year 2006 between the plaintiff and the defendant as null and void? 2. To what other relief is the plaintiff entitled to? 5. Before the trial Court, the plaintiff had examined 3 witnesses and marked Exs.A1 to A9. On the side of the defendant, she had examined herself as DW1 and marked Exs.B1 and B2. 6. The learned District Munsif, Vanur, by judgment and decree dated 26.02.2015, was pleased to dismiss the said suit. The trial Court disbelieved the statement of the plaintiff that he was compelled into registering the marriage. On the side of the defendant, she had examined herself as DW1 and marked Exs.B1 and B2. 6. The learned District Munsif, Vanur, by judgment and decree dated 26.02.2015, was pleased to dismiss the said suit. The trial Court disbelieved the statement of the plaintiff that he was compelled into registering the marriage. The plaintiff aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial Court, had filed an appeal before the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Tindivanam in A.S.No.8 of 2015. The learned Judge also confirmed the judgment and decree of the learned District Munsif, Vanur. Challenging the same, the plaintiff is before this Court. 7. After hearing the arguments, the only substantial question of law that arises for consideration is --whether the registration of marriage without a prior marriage ceremony would render the marriage null and void?-- The counsels have also addressed argument on the same. 8. The only contention of the plaintiff is that the parties had gone to the Sub-Registrar Office to make enquiries regarding the registration of marriage where the plaintiff was tricked into signing documents. However, the plaintiff would submit that even assuming that such a marriage had taken place the same has not been given effect to. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would rely upon the following judgments : To support his contention that a mere registration of marriage would not be a substitute for a marriage not conducted as per rites and customs. 1. Mousami Chakraborty Vs. Subrata Guha Roy 2. Shaji Vs. Gopinath 3. B.Balamurali Vs. M.Deepa Quinn 4. S.Karunakaran Vs. Srilekha 10. The learned counsel would also rely upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Samar Kumar Roy (D) Through Lr.(Mother) Vs. Jharna Bera. 11. A perusal of this judgment would indicate that the suit for declaration filed by the plaintiff is maintainable. He would also rely on a Division Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of S.Karunakaran Vs.Srilekha, wherein, the Division Bench had observed that the registration of the marriage has been introduced for the purpose of showing proof of marriage and the registration by itself was not a proof of marriage. In order to bring the marriage within the provisions of Section 7(A) of the Hindu Marriage Act the customary rites has to be performed to be called a valid marriage. In order to bring the marriage within the provisions of Section 7(A) of the Hindu Marriage Act the customary rites has to be performed to be called a valid marriage. The Bench held that since there is no proof to show that the marriage as per the customary rite has been conducted there was no marriage in the eye of law. Therefore, the learned counsel would submit that even in the instant case there is no proof to show that the marriage had taken place between the parties as per customary rites and therefore, the Courts below have erred in dismissing the suit. 12. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that there is absolutely no denial about the registration of marriage. The plaintiff would submit that the reason for having the marriage registered was in the background which has been set out in detail in paragraph No.3 of the written statement filed by the defendant. He would further submit that even before the registration, the parties had been living together and the same has been set out in the written statement which has not been denied by the plaintiff. The plaintiff is seeking to take advantage of the absence of a customary rite in their marriage. He would submit that the parties had undergone a marriage which is recognised by virtue of a State Amendment to Section 7A. 13. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent and perused the records. 14. A perusal of the cross-examination of the appellant would show that the appellant has gone to the Sub-Registrar’s Office knowing fully well the reason for the visit. He also admits to signing documents. He has admitted so in his cross-examination: Therefore, from this admission, it is clear that the plaintiff was well aware about the reason why he had visited the Registrar Office. 15. The short issue for the consideration of this Court is whether any form of marriage has been solemnized between the parties before its registration to declare it a valid marriage. The case of the appellant is that no ceremony has envisaged under the Act has taken place and therefore, the marriage is invalid. 16. On the contrary, it is the case of the respondent that they had first undergone a form of marriage and thereafter, the parties had got the marriage registered. The case of the appellant is that no ceremony has envisaged under the Act has taken place and therefore, the marriage is invalid. 16. On the contrary, it is the case of the respondent that they had first undergone a form of marriage and thereafter, the parties had got the marriage registered. This form of marriage is recognised by virtue of the State Amendment to Section 7A. 17. The appellant has categorically admitted that he was in a relationship with the respondent and they had decided to get married and with this in mind, they had gone to Sub-Registrar’s Office. Having said so, the plaintiff would thereafter retract and say that he had gone there to enquire about the procedure and that he was made to sign the documents. The evidence of PW1 cannot be taken as face value as he is not a credible witness. 18. The learned counsel for the appellant has relied heavily upon the fact that the respondent has not cross-examined PW3 and therefore, his evidence has to taken as accepted. Even if the argument is accepted, a perusal of the evidence of PW3 would indicate that there is no categorical denial about the marriage, but, the witness would only state that if they had married, the news would spread like fire and therefore, had it not been taken place the witness would categorically deny the claim and not speculate. In this regard, the respondent/wife had deposed that the marriage was kept away from the relatives since the appellant/plaintiff had an elder brother to get married as well as younger sister. This explanation appears to be a plausible one and accepted by both the Courts below. The Courts below have also drawn adverse inference for the non-examination of an Officer from the Sub-Registrar Office, especially, when the registration certificate clearly states that the marriage that has performed as a marriage prior to the registration. Being a public document entered into in the presence of the register, credence to be given to the said document since the appellant/plaintiff has not been able to prove that this entry is the result of fraud. 19. Being a public document entered into in the presence of the register, credence to be given to the said document since the appellant/plaintiff has not been able to prove that this entry is the result of fraud. 19. In Inder Singh and others v. Raghbir Singh, etc., reported in AIR 1978 P & H 98, the Full Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court observed : “The principle is that an official record, kept by a person, upon whom there is a public duty to make entries in it only after satisfying himself of the truth of those entries, is presumed to be correct. Such a document itself is evidence of the truth of its contents unless and until its falsity can be demonstrated by any of the various methods by which the evidentiary value of any public book, register or document may be attacked.” 20. In the instant case, fraud has not been established by the appellant/plaintiff. Therefore, in the light of the above judgment, I find no reason to interfere with the well considered judgment of the Courts below and consequently, this Second Appeal is dismissed and Judgment and Decree dated 26.08.2019 in A.S.No.8 of 2015 passed by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Tindivanam, dismissing the appeal and confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 26.02.2015 in O.S.No.76 of 2008 passed by the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Vanur are hereby confirmed. However there shall be no order as to costs.