Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 859 (HP)

Beena Thakur v. Gulab Singh (deceased) through LR

2025-04-30

BIPIN CHANDER NEGI

body2025
JUDGMENT : (Bipin Chander Negi, J.) The appellant by filing this appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure has assailed the judgement and decree dated 30.11.2024, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Solan, HP in Civil Appeal No.27-S-13/23(18), whereby the judgment and decree dated 29.03.2018 in Civil Suit No. 153/1 of 2008 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Court No.1, Solan, District Solan, H.P. was affirmed. 2. The appellants before this Court were the plaintiffs before the trial Court. The facts leading up to the present appeal are that the plaintiffs instituted a suit seeking a declaration that plaintiff No.1 is the legally wedded wife of the defendant and the plaintiffs No.2 and 3 are the legitimate children of the defendant, born out of the said wedlock. Additionally, they sought a declaration that the findings of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class in proceedings under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. regarding the marital status of plaintiff No.1 and the legitimacy of plaintiffs No. 2 and 3 were erroneous and null and void. The material facts, as set out in the plaint, revealed that in the year 1985, the marriage of plaintiff No.1 (a resident of village Kashna) was solemnized with the defendant (a resident of village Ghunda) in accordance with Hindu customs, rites and ceremonies. It was averred that thereafter, plaintiff No.1 and the defendant lived together as husband and wife at the matrimonial home in village Ghunda along with the defendant’s family. From this union, plaintiff No.1 gave birth to a daughter i.e. Ashima Thakur (plaintiff No.2) on 4.6.1986 and a son i.e. Yash Thakur (plaintiff No.3) on 17.4.1992. 3. As per the customs prevalent in the community of the parties, the marriage ceremony involved a short ritual at the bride’s place, attended by three or four persons from the bridegroom’s side, followed by the bride being escorted to the bridegroom’s village by an equal number of persons from her side. At the bridegroom’s place, the nuptial rites, including saptapadi (seven steps around the sacred fire), recitation of mantras by the priests, and kanyadaan, were performed in the presence of relatives and villagers. It was claimed that the marriage of plaintiff No.1 and the defendant was solemnized in this manner at village Ghunda (Himri), where the defendant arrived with a barat (wedding procession) from his village to village Kashna. It was claimed that the marriage of plaintiff No.1 and the defendant was solemnized in this manner at village Ghunda (Himri), where the defendant arrived with a barat (wedding procession) from his village to village Kashna. After the marriage, the couple cohabited in village Ghunda for some years before moving to Solan, where they rented accommodation from one Sh. Batta and resided together. However, since the defendant had to manage orchards in village Ghunda, he primarily stayed there and visited the plaintiffs in Solan intermittently. The defendant’s parents also occasionally stayed with them in Solan. 4. Unfortunately, around March/April 2001, the relationship between plaintiff No.1 and the defendant deteriorated. The defendant allegedly began behaving erratically, stopped providing maintenance, and subjected plaintiff No.1 to physical abuse under the influence of alcohol. Consequently, plaintiff No.1 took up tailoring work to support herself and the children. Efforts at reconciliation failed, and plaintiff No.1 later discovered that the defendant had developed an illicit relationship with one Smt. Kavita, whom he had married and brought to village Ghunda. When confronted, the defendant disowned the plaintiffs. Despite complaints to the police at Theog and Kotkhai, no action was taken. Subsequently, maintenance petitions (No. 35/4 of 2007/05, 33/4 of 2007/05, and 32/4 of 2007/05) were filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kandaghat, who held that while plaintiffs No. 2 and 3 were the biological children of plaintiff No.1 and the defendant, the marriage itself was not proved. 5. The plaintiffs contended that this finding was erroneous, as the learned Magistrate disregarded evidence such as photographs showing the plaintiffs with the defendant’s parents (Sh. Hira Singh and Smt. Roopi), educational certificates, a certificate issued by Gram Panchayat-Himri, statements of the landlord and independent witnesses, and school records. It was further averred that the defendant had admitted plaintiffs No. 2 and 3 to D.A.V. School, Solan, attended school functions, and corresponded with the school authorities. Official documents such as voter cards and ration cards also identified the defendant as the husband of plaintiff No.1 and the father of plaintiffs No. 2 and 3. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant’s denial of the marriage was a fabrication to legitimize his relationship with Smt. Kavita and evade his responsibilities. 6. The defendant, in his written statement, denied the solemnization of the marriage in 1985 as per Hindu customs and rites. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant’s denial of the marriage was a fabrication to legitimize his relationship with Smt. Kavita and evade his responsibilities. 6. The defendant, in his written statement, denied the solemnization of the marriage in 1985 as per Hindu customs and rites. He disputed the existence of any such custom as described by the plaintiffs and alleged that plaintiff No.1 concocted the story after her appeal against the decision of the learned Judicial Magistrate was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Solan. The defendant maintained that the findings of the learned Magistrate were correct and denied the plaintiffs’ cause of action. 7. Upon consideration of the pleadings, the following issues were framed on 19.2.2010: 1. Whether the marriage of plaintiff No.1 and the defendant was solemnized as per Hindu rites, ceremonies, and custom in 1985, as alleged? ... OPP 2. Whether plaintiff No.1 is the legally wedded wife of the defendant and plaintiffs No. 2 and 3 are legitimate children born out of the said wedlock, as alleged? ... OPP 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable? ... OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action? ... OPD 5. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file and maintain the present suit? ... OPD 6. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? ... OPD 7. Whether the suit has been properly valued for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction? 8. Relief. 8. After hearing the parties, the learned trial court answered all issues in the negative and dismissed the suit. 9. Aggrieved by this decision, the plaintiffs preferred a first appeal on several grounds. They contended that the findings of the learned trial court were based on surmises and conjectures and that the court failed to correctly appreciate the oral and documentary evidence on record. It was further argued that the trial court did not frame proper issues arising from the pleadings of the parties. The plaintiffs also asserted that the trial court erred in not recognizing plaintiff No.1 as the legally wedded wife of the defendant and plaintiffs No. 2 and 3 as their legitimate children. Additionally, the court allegedly failed to appreciate the testimonies of PW3, PW6, and PW7, which supported the solemnization of the marriage, as well as public documents such as voter lists (Ext. PX5, PX6, PX7), birth certificates, and school admission records. Additionally, the court allegedly failed to appreciate the testimonies of PW3, PW6, and PW7, which supported the solemnization of the marriage, as well as public documents such as voter lists (Ext. PX5, PX6, PX7), birth certificates, and school admission records. The plaintiffs further submitted that the trial court wrongly denied the declaration regarding the legitimacy of plaintiffs No. 2 and 3 without proper findings on issue No.2. Lastly, they argued that the defendant failed to prove that Smt. Kavita was his legally wedded wife, a fact which the trial court ignored. 10. The first appeal was dismissed therefore the present second appeal was preferred by them. 11. Heard counsel for the appellants and perused the impugned judgments. 12. Suit in the case at hand was filed on 17.08.2008. Prior to the filling of the suit the deceased defendant/respondent had solemnised his marriage with a lady named Kavita. From the pleadings the courts below have ascertained that the deceased respondent had disowned the present appellant (as his wife) in the year 2003. 13. Other than the aforesaid, in the reply filed in the proceedings under section 125 Cr.P.C by the present appellant the deceased respondent had categorically denied the factum of the present appellant being his legally wedded wife. Despite the said denials in the year 2003 by the deceased respondent, the suit in the case at hand was filed by the appellant in 2008. 14. On an appreciation of the pleadings and evidence led by both the parties, the court below have correctly, concurrently held that no legal valid marriage had been solemnised inter se the appellant and the deceased respondent. The necessary corollary qua the progeny procreated from the illegal relationship between the appellant and the deceased respondent has been correctly determined by the courts below, I find no infirmity with the same 15. In view of the aforesaid facts and attending circumstances, there arises no question of law much-less a substantial question of law for consideration of the Court, therefore, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of any merit. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. Pending miscellaneous application(s) stand disposed of.