Delhi District Court
Sh. Raghubir Singh vs Sh. Manoj Kumar on 19 January, 2011
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. S. K. SARVARIA, DISTRICT JUDGEVIII
DISTRICT COURTS ROHINI, DELHI
Civil Suit No. 64/10
In the matter of :
Sh. Raghubir Singh
S/o Late Sh. Sohan Lal
R/o B76, Sector24, JJ Colony,
Delhi - 110025. ... Plaintiff
VERSUS
1. Sh. Manoj Kumar
S/o Sh. Shiv Prasad
2. Smt. Jyoti
W/o Sh. Manoj Kumar
D/o Sh. Raghubir Singh
Both r/o House A100,
Balbir Vihar, near Sultanpuri Terminal
Delhi.
And also r/o : H.N. Y537,
Mangol Puri, JJ Colony, Delhi.
3. Manager/Parbandhak/Head Priest
Arya Samaj Mandir, Plot No. 5,
Main Road, Himgiri Enclave,
Mukandpur II, Delhi 110084. ... Defendants
Raghubir Singh vs. Manoj Kumar
2
O R D E R (Application u/O 12 rule 6 CPC) :
1. By this order I shall decide an application u/O 12 rule 6 r/w Sec. 151 CPC filed by the plaintiff for decreeing the suit in the light of admission made by defendant no.1 and 2 in the written statement. The application is not contested on behalf of defendants.
2. I have heard Ld. counsel for the plaintiff and defendant nos. 1 and 2 and have gone through the record of the case carefully.
3. The brief facts giving rise to the present application are that in the plaint, it is alleged that the plaintiff and defendant no.1 are cousins. The father of the plaintiff and father of the defendant no.1 are real brothers and both are sons of late Madho Ram. The defendant no.2 is daughter of the plaintiff who is major and unfortunately under the guise of marriage with defendant no.1, she is residing in his company as husband and wife.
4. The defendant no.1 and 2 had solemnised their marriage as per Hindu Vedic Rites, customs and rituals on 19.04.2010 before defendant no.3, who had issued marriage certificate bearing No. 222/2010 on 22.07.2010 by declaring the legal authenticity and validity Raghubir Singh vs. Manoj Kumar 3 of this illegal marriage. This marriage certificate was issued on the basis of affidavits of defendant no.1 and 2 prior to solemnization of their marriage, voter Icards of defendant nos.1 and 2, birth certificates issued to them, school leaving certificates, mark sheets of defendant no. 2, and PAN cards of defendant no.1 and 2 etc. The defendant no.3 did not obtain correct particulars from defendant no.1 and 2 to ascertain that both the defendant nos.1 and 2 are in the SPINDA relationship because it is an essential and required information prior to solemnize the marriage and issuance of certificate for confirming the legal marriage.
5. The marriage of defendant no.1 and 2 is illegal, they being in SPINDA relationship of each other being under degree of prohibited relationship as per Hindu Law. There is no usage, custom and law which allow both the defendant nos.1 and 2 to get married or continue relationship as such, which is an offence also. With no option, the plaintiff had got issued legal notice dated 22.7.10 issued through an advocate through registered AD and UPC to all the defendants. But defendants did not bother and defendant nos.1 and 2 are still living in the company of each other as husband and wife and defendant no.3 did not take any action against them despite the notice.
6. The plaintiff has prayed for decree of declaration in his Raghubir Singh vs. Manoj Kumar 4 favour and against the defendants thereby declaring the socalled marriage performed by defendant no.1 and 2 on 19.04.2010 before defendant no.3 as null and void abinitio as illegal and unlawful, the defendant nos.1 and 2 being in SPINDA relationship.
7. The plaintiff has also claimed decree of declaration that marriage certificate dated 22.07.2010 issued by defendant no.3 in respect of so called marriage performed between the SPINDA relationship by defendant nos. 1 and 2 on 19.04.2010 before defendant no.3 be declared as null and void and of no effect in the interest of justice.
8. The defendant nos.1 and 2 filed joint written statement admitting their relationship. They also admitted that plaintiff and defendant no.1 are the cousins and the father of plaintiff and father of defendant no.1 are real brothers and they both are sons of late Sh. Madho Ram. But in fact, since the plaintiff and father of defendant no.1 are the real brothers so, relationship between the plaintiff and defendant no.1 is of uncle and nephew and defendant no.1 and 2 are cousin. The plaintiff and father of defendant no.1 being real brothers, the defendant no.1 and 2 are within prohibited degree of relationship i.e. SPINDA relationship and their marriage is prohibited under Hindu Law.
Raghubir Singh vs. Manoj Kumar 5
9. As per Sec. 5(v) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, so far is relevant, a marriage may be solemnized between any two Hindus, if the parties are not SAPINDAS of each other, unless, the custom and usage governing each of them permits of marriage between the two. Undisputedly, there is no custom and usage which permits the defendant nos.1 and 2, who are SPINDA to each other to solemnize the marriage amongst themselves. Therefore, their marriage is not permissible as Hindu Marriage as per Hindu Law.
10. In the separate Written statement filed by defendant no.3, who is Manager/Parbandhak/Head Priest of Arya Samaj Mandir has stated that defendant no.1 and 2 have declared themselves that they were not SPINDA to each other. Therefore, the certificate of marriage issued by defendant no.3 to defendant no.1 and 2 suffers from inherent defect by virtue of false affidavits given by defendant no.1 and 2 before defendant no.3 before performing the marriage. The marriage certificate issued by defendant no.3 to defendant nos. 1 and 2 on account of wrong information supplied by them that they were not SPINDA to each other is therefore, invalid in lights of the said false facts.
11. As regards, the maintainability of suit before civil courts, the Order 32 A pertains to suits related to matter concerning the families. As Raghubir Singh vs. Manoj Kumar 6 per Sub Rule 2 (a) of Order 32 A, this order applies to a suit or proceedings for matrimonial relief, including a suit or proceeding for declaration as to the validity of a marriage or as to the matrimonial status of any person. Therefore, suit is also maintainable. The defendant no.1 and 2 being in relationship of SPINDA to each other and both being Hindu cannot perform a valid marriage amongst each other, therefore, their marriage is liable to be declared as null and void. For the foregoing reasons, the certificate issued on 22.07.2010 by Defendant no.3 in respect of performing the marriage is also to be declared as null and void.
12. In view of the above, the application is allowed and a decree of declaration is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants thereby declaring the so called marriage performed by defendant no.1 and 2 on 19.04.2010 before the defendant no.3 as null and void, the defendant no.1 and 2 being SPINDA to each other. A decree of declaration is also passed in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants by declaring that marriage certificate issued by defendant no.3 on 22.07.2010 in respect of marriage performed by defendant no.1 and. 2 is null and void and illegal with no legal effect. In view of peculiar circumstances of the case, there is no order as to cost. The decreesheet be prepared.
Raghubir Singh vs. Manoj Kumar 7 The order be sent to the server (www.delhidistrictcourts. nic.in). File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court on 19th day of January, 2011 (S. K. SARVARIA) District Judge VIII Rohini Courts, Delhi Raghubir Singh vs. Manoj Kumar