Madhya Pradesh High Court
Amit Sharma vs Smt Parul on 14 March, 2018
Equivalent citations: AIR 2018 (NOC) 507 (M.P.)
Author: Anjuli Palo
Bench: Anjuli Palo
1
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, PRINCIPAL SEAT AT
JABALPUR
First Appeal No. 844 of 2017
Parties Name Amit Sharma vs Smt. Parul and others
Bench Constituted Hon'ble Shri Justice S.K. Gangele &
Hon'ble Smt. Justice Anjuli Palo
Judgment delivered by Hon'ble Shri Justice S.K. Gangele
Whether approved for reporting Yes/No
Name of counsels for parties For appellant: Shri Manoj Sharma with Shri
Quazi Fakhruddin Advocate .
For respondent/State: Shri Sanjay K.Agrawal
Law laid down
Significant paragraph numbers
Reserved on 05.03.2018.
JUDGMENT
[Delivered on : 14.03.2018]
1. Appellant has filed this appeal against the judgment and decree dated 25.09.2017 passed by the Court Principal Judge, Family Court, Panna in Hindu Marriage Case No.45/2015.
2. Appellant filed an application under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act 1955 read with Section 22 of Special Marriage Act, 1954 for restitution of conjugal rights. He pleaded that an agreement of marriage between appellant and respondent was executed before Notary District Panna on 11.01.2010. On the basis of aforesaid agreement, an application was filed before the Collector/District Marriage Registration Officer, Panna to issue certificate of marriage in accordance with the provision of Special Marriage Act 1954. Proceedings were conducted thereafter, marriage certificate was issued on 23.02.2010. Respondent was living separately, she did not come to live with the appellant to perform obligation of marriage hence, decree of restitution of conjugal rights be passed.
3. Respondent in her reply denied the fact that any marriage was solemnized between appellant and respondent. She further pleaded that agreement prepared by the appellant before the Notary dated 11.01.2010 is forged and fabricated document, it is ab initio void . Notary was not authorized to execute the agreement in regard to marriage. She denied the fact that any application was filed before the Collector for certification of marriage and when the marriage was not solemnized, there was no question of issuance of certificate of marriage. The proceedings were conducted before the Collector are not in accordance with law. The respondent did not live with the appellant. Respondent also filed counter-claim declaring the certificate of marriage dated 23.02.2010 as null and void.
4. Trial Court dismissed the suit filed by the appellant for restitution of conjugal rights. The Court further allowed the counter- claim of the respondent and declared the marriage certificate dated 23.02.2010 as null and void, after holding that there was no valid marriage solemnized between appellant and respondent hence, there was no question for issuance of marriage certificate under Special Marriage Act 1954.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant has contended that there is sufficient evidence that marriage was solemnized between appellant and respondent. Trial Court has committed an error in holding that there was no valid marriage between appellant and respondent.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that there is no evidence on record produced by the appellant that marriage of appellant with the respondent was solemnized in accordance with Hindu rituals hence, the Court has recorded proper findings.
7. Appellant in his affidavit deposed that there was a love relationship between appellant and respondent. Both had executed an agreement on 11.01.2010 which was certified by the Notary Ramroop Tiwari. They had performed marriage with each other. Thereafter, both filed application before the Collector Panna in accordance with the provisions of Special Marriage Act for issuance of marriage certificate. Respondent used to live with the appellant upto 18.03.2013 at Tikuria Mohalla, Panna as wife thereafter, she quarreled with the appellant. In his cross-examination he deposed that the agreement of marriage was executed between him and the respondent which was certified by the Notary. He further pleaded that no rituals of marriage were performed at Jabalpur. Rituals were performed at Panna. During marriage my mother Pushpa Sharma, two sisters Swati Sharma and Shweta Sharma were present. Saptapadi was performed by Someshwar Sharma. Mr. Ramrup Tiwari verified that both the parties executed the agreement. Reader of the Collector witness no.4 verified the fact that on 23.10.2010 a certificate was issued from the Office.
8. The document in regard to application filed before the Collector Panna for certificate of marriage and the statements of appellant and respondent have also been filed.
9. Respondent filed her affidavit and stated that she was working with Vipro company. She denied the fact that any marriage was solemnized between appellant and her with "Saptapadi" or any form of marriage. She also denied the fact that she had lived at any time with the respondent. She further pleaded that forged certificate has been procured by the appellant. She denied the execution of agreement of marriage.
10. Section 7 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 prescribes solemnized marriage. Section reads as under:-
"7. Ceremonies for a Hindu marriage.- (1) A Hindu marriage may be solemnized in accordance with the customary rites and ceremonies of other party thereto.
(2) Where such rites and ceremonies include the Saptpadi (that is, the taking of seven steps by the bridegroom and the bride jointly before the sacred fire), the marriage becomes complete and binding when the seventh step is taken."
In accordance with Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for the purpose of valid marriage, it has to be established that the marriage was solemnized in accordance with customary rites and ceremonies of other party and where such rites and ceremonies include the saptapadi, the marriage becomes complete and binding when the seventh step is taken.
11. Appellant in his plaint pleaded that an agreement was executed between him and the respondent before the Notary for marriage thereafter, both had filed application under the provisions of Special Marriage Act 1954 for registration of marriage. It was not pleaded by the appellant that when the marriage was solemnized. In his evidence, he deposed that marriage was solemnized at Panna and "saptapadi" was also performed. This fact has been denied bhy the respondent. There is no cogent evidence to the effect that 'Saptpadi"
was performed between appellant and the respondent at Panna. The respondent specifically denied the fact that "saptapadi' or any marriage ceremonies were performed between her and the appellant.
Appellant has to discharge his burden to prove the valid marriage.
12. Section 15 of Special Marriage Act 1954 prescribes registration of marriages celebrated in other forms. The section reads as under:-
"15. Registration of marriages celebrated in other forms.--Any marriage celebrated, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, other than a marriage solemnized under the 1Special Marriage Act, 1872 (III of 1872) or under this Act, may be registered under this Chapter by a Marriage Officer in the territories to which this Act extends if the following conditions are fulfilled, namely:--
(a) a ceremony of marriage has been performed between the parties and they have been living together as husband and wife ever since;
(b) neither party has at the time of registration more than one spouse living;
(c) neither party is an idiot or a lunatic at the time of registration;
(d) the parties have completed the age of twenty-one years at the time of registration;(e) the parties are not within the degrees of prohibited relationship: Provided that in the case of a marriage celebrated before the commencement of this Act, this condition shall be subject to any law, custom or usage having the force of law governing each of them which permits of a marriage between the two; and
(f) the parties have been residing within the district of the Marriage Officer for a period of not less than thirty days immediately preceding the date on which the application is made to him for registration of the marriage."
In accordance with the aforesaid, if a ceremony of marriage has been performed between the parties and they have been living together as husband and wife. Since there was no valid marriage performed between the appellant and respondent in accordance with Hindu Marriage Act, there was no question of issuance of marriage certificate as held by this Court in the case of Sanjay Mishra vs. Eveline Jobe, AIR 1993 MP 54.
13. In this view of the matter, in our opinion, the trial Court has rightly dismissed the suit filed by the appellant and allowed the counter-claim filed by the respondent declaring the marriage certificate as null and void. Consequently, we do not find any merit in this appeal. It is hereby dismissed. No order as to the costs.
[S.K. GANGELE] [SMT. ANJULI PALO] Judge Judge pb Digitally signed by PRASHANT BAGJILEWALE Date: 2018.03.15 03:45:33 -07'00'