Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 302 (UTT)

Mumtaj Ahmed v. Alisa

2023-05-11

RAKESH THAPLIYAL, VIPIN SANGHI

body2023
JUDGMENT : Vipin Sanghi, J. The present first appeal, under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 28.02.2023, passed by the learned Judge, Family Court I, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar, in Family Case (Civil Case) No.604 of 2018, preferred by the appellant against his respondent wife. By the impugned judgment, the learned Judge, Family Court, has dismissed the suit filed by the appellant. 2. The appellant had admittedly solemnized a Muslim marriage with the respondent No.1 Smt.Alisa on 15.10.2015. From their wedlock they have been blessed with a daughter. The appellant filed the said suit to seek a declaration that the marriage between the plaintiff and the defendant No.1 was void on the ground that respondent No.1 was already married to respondent No.2 Sri Sanjay Arya on 13.09.2015. The case of the appellant was that, at the time of his marriage with respondent No.1, he was not informed of the fact that respondent No.2 had taken away respondent No.1 with him to Chandigarh, where they had performed Hindu marriage, and even consummated the marriage. The appellant placed reliance on the record relating to POCSO case No.245 of 2015, in support of his case, that the respondents had performed a Hindu marriage. The statement of respondent No.1 recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., and the statement of her mother, were relied upon by the appellant. 3. The learned Judge, Family Court, has, however, not accepted the said plea by observing that production of mere statements was hear say evidence, and there was no actual evidence of marriage being performed between the two respondents, produced by the appellant. 4. We have perused the record, and we concur with the conclusions of the learned Judge, Family Court, for yet another reason. Respondent No.1 admittedly is Muslim by religion, whereas respondent No.2 admittedly is Hindu by religion. The case set up by the appellant in his suit was that they had conducted Hindu marriage, which was not possible, since it was not even the case of the appellant in his suit, that respondent No.1 had converted to Hinduism by giving up Muslim religion. A marriage between a Hindu and a Muslim could be performed only under the Special Marriage Act, and, therefore, even if the version of the appellant were to be accepted, the so called Hindu marriage is no marriage in the eyes of law. A marriage between a Hindu and a Muslim could be performed only under the Special Marriage Act, and, therefore, even if the version of the appellant were to be accepted, the so called Hindu marriage is no marriage in the eyes of law. 5. Aforesaid being the position, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment. 6. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. 7. Stay application (IA No.01 of 2023) also stands disposed of.