Bombay High Court
Appellant : Sheikh Abdullah Son Of ... vs Respondent on 15 September, 2011
Author: A. P. Bhangale
Bench: B. P. Dharmadhikari, A. P. Bhangale
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
First Appeal No. 275 of 2001
Appellant : Sheikh Abdullah son of Sheikh Hafizullah, aged
about 31 years, occupation : business, resident of
of Bhutiya Darwaza, Near Masjid, Nagpur
versus
Respondent :
Dr Husnaara Parveen wife of Sheik Abdulla, aged about 27 years, resident of Bhutiya Darwaza, Near Masjid, Nagpur Mr Abdul Bashir, Advocate for appellant Mr A.M. Rizwy, Advocate for respondent Coram : B. P. Dharmadhikari & A. P. Bhangale, JJ Dated : 14/15th September 2011 Oral Judgment (Per A. P. Bhangale, J)
1. Present appeal is preferred by appellant-husband against the judgment and order dated 14th June 2001 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Nagpur dismissing his petition for restitution of conjugal rights. Appeal has not come up for final hearing out of chronology. However, in view of Civil Application No. 2386 of 2001 filed by appellant-husband for grant of stay as, ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:44:17 ::: 2 according to appellant, respondent-wife is getting married on 16th September 2011, instead of deciding civil application alone, appeal itself has been taken up for final hearing by consent of parties.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length. Perused the impugned judgment and order and other material on record.
3. The case of the appellant is that respondent is cousin of appellant and they were residing at Bhutiya Darwaza, near Masjid, Nagpur. They fell in love with each other and their love affair blossomed into their agreement to enter the marital tie. It is averred in the petition that somewhere in the month of May-June 1997 they visited the office of District Marriage Officer and an application in prescribed proforma along with relevant documents was filed by respondent for her intended marriage with appellant. However, marriage could not be performed since the parties could not attend the said Office well in time.
After this attempt failed, another application in prescribed proforma was prepared, but it could not be submitted. Lastly, on 1.11.1997 appellant and respondent got married as per the provisions of the Muslim Personal Law.
Meher amount was settled at Rs. 11,000/- and the marriage was registered on 7.11.1997. The case of the appellant is that marriage was consummated and that appellant had opened savings bank account in his own name with Shikshak Sahakari Bank, Mahal Branch, Nagpur showing respondent as his nominee.
According to appellant, he and respondent led marital life for about four months. However, thereafter respondent's close relations started objecting to the marriage and they diverted her mind. In or about May 1998, respondent issued notice though her lawyer to the petitioner alleging that marriage was performed fraudulently and that appellant misused her signatures on certain ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:44:17 ::: 3 forms. Notice was replied by appellant. Respondent did not stop there. She lodged police report making false allegations. Even though police did not register any offence, they exerted pressure on appellant to dissolve the marriage. Appellant sought for appropriate action against the concerned police officers by making representations to the Commissioner of Police and other higher-ups. He then filed petition (Case No. A243 of 1998) before the Family Court for restitution of conjugal rights.
4. On being served, respondent Husnaara filed her Written Statement and denied marriage. She averred that the alleged marriage was nothing but a fraud which was played by the petitioner (appellant) after misusing her signatures on certain blank forms which were obtained by the appellant by force and fraud. She denied all adverse allegations and added that appellant is a greedy person and wanted a wife who is earning hand. She prayed for dismissal of the petition.
5. Before the Family Court, appellant examined himself on oath and Mohammad Sakil who allegedly performed Nikah as also Mohamad Hanif, a common friend. On the other hand, respondent examined herself; her mother Smt Sadeka and her cousin brother Abdul Rashid.
6. Learned Judge of the Family Court held that no valid marriage was proved. A finding is rendered that appellant-petitioner failed to prove that respondent withdrew his society without any reasonable cause and that appellant was not entitled to decree for restitution of conjugal rights. Petition thus came to be dismissed by the impugned judgment and order .
7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant strenuously urged that the finding of learned Judge, Family Court is per-se illegal and that learned ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:44:17 ::: 4 Judge has erred in law by holding that the marriage was not legal and valid and out of own volition of respondent-wife. He read before us oral evidence adduced on record and love messages sent by respondent to appellant in form of poems-gazhals in her own hand-writing. It is contended that appellant and respondent had married in accordance with Muslim religious rites and thus there was permanent civil contract between the spouse. Learned counsel for the appellant after taking us through entire evidence urged that the appeal ought to be allowed as there was sufficient evidence to prove that there was valid marriage between appellant and respondent and that respondent had withdrawn herself from the company of the appellant on the ground that she was educated and appellate is illiterate. According to him, appellant and respondent had cohabited as husband and wife for about four months; Savings Bank account of appellant showed the name of respondent as and nominee.
Further, according to learned counsel, fact of performance of Nikah; settlement of Meher amount is proved through evidence and, therefore, it ought to have been concluded that there was valid marriage between the parties. He, therefore, prayed that appeal be allowed.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent emphatically contended that appellant had failed to discharge onus upon him and there was no legal evidence to prove marriage contract according to Muslim Law and religious rites in the present case. He also submitted that respondent had denied any marriage with the appellant by her specific contention that she never signed any document to acknowledge marriage with the appellant. It is also submitted that there was no cohabitation at all between the appellant and the respondent and there was no possibility of marriage taking place in the absence ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:44:17 ::: 5 of family members of respondent. It is also contended that the appellant has taken some signatures on blank papers by exerting pressure on the respondent in respect of which legal notice dated 9.5.1998 was served that her signatures were obtained by fraud or per force. It is further submitted that appellant tried to blackmail the respondent by demanding a sum of Rs. 60,000/- from the respondent. Learned counsel reiterated that since there was no sufficient evidence to hold that the marriage between the parties was pursuant to a valid contract, valid, learned Judge, Family Court has rightly answered the points for determination in favour of respondent. He prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
9. The points for determination arose as under :
Points for determination Findings (1) Whether the appellant had proved valid marriage with the respondent in accordance with Muslim Law and religious rites ? ...... Not proved.
(2) Whether the appellant had proved that the respondent withdrew from his society without any just and reasonable cause ? ..... No. (3) Whether appellant is entitled for a relief of restitution of conjugal right ? ..... No (4) What order ? ..... The appeal is dismissed.
R E A S O N S
10. The first question before us is as to whether there existed valid ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:44:17 ::: 6 marriage in accordance with Mohamedan Law between appellant and respondent. Appellant deposed before the Family Court that respondent is his cousin sister and they were residing in the houses adjacent to each other with common partition. According to appellant, respondent had sent letters (exhibits 40 and 40A) submitted by him in the Family Court which appear to have been denied by respondent in her evidence. Appellant claimed that he had approached with a notice of intended marriage in the office of Registrar of Marriages situated at Civil Lines, Nagpur along with leaving certificates and the forms were filled in in the hand-writing of the respondent as per exhibit 41 and the Registrar had fixed the date of marriage as 17.2.1997. Although according to appellant, names of appellant and respondent were displayed on the notice board, they could not attend the date fixed for marriage. Looking into this evidence, it becomes an admitted fact that there was no marriage solemnized in terms of the provisions contained in the Special Marriage Act. It is further claimed by the appellant that he and respondent had decided to marry in accordance with their personal law and that they had gone to Moulana Shakil who had performed their Nikah at Panipeth, Mominpura, Nagpur and at that time, Dr Arif was Vakil and that there were two witnesses viz. Mohammad Hanif and Mohammad Hafiz when Meher was fixed at Rs. 11,000/-. Appellant also claims that he and respondent got their marriage registered on 1.11.1997 and thereafter both of them resided together for about four months. However, except for bank account in which respondent was nominated, there is no any acceptable and admissible documentary evidence produced on behalf of appellant so as to believe that he had in fact married with the respondent in accordance with Islamic law. According to appellant, after cohabitation for a ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:44:17 ::: 7 period of four months, respondent had requested him that she wanted to meet her parents. He allowed her to meet her parents, but thereafter for 3-4 days respondent did not meet him. Therefore, he went to her parents' place where respondent's father did not allow him to enter the house. This version also appears doubtful because had it been so as a natural conduct, the appellant would have taken immediate steps to approach police or court of law.
10. Witness Mohammad Sakil examined by the appellant deposed about certain conditions which are required to be complied with for marriage which are stated thus : (1) Bride shall attain the age of puberty and (2) At the time of marriage, besides bride and bride-groom, three other persons are required to be present i.e. two witnesses and one Vakil. Although he stated about the procedure as to how marriage contract is entered into, he did not specify as to what exactly had happened when alleged Nikah was performed so as to comply with the procedure stated by him for performance of valid marriage in accordance with Muslim Law. In the course of his cross-
examination, witness Mohammad Sakil admitted that there was no mention in the Marriage Register brought by him as to the specific place of marriage. It was not so mentioned even in the marriage certificate as according to him, certificates were given to both bride and bride-groom. He has also admitted that he had not seen face of bride till Nikah. According to him, it is the right of bride to appoint a Vakil, but he had no knowledge as to who appointed Vakil for the bride. He never enquired as to whether parents of the petitioner and other family members were present for Nikah or not. He was unable to recognize signatures of the persons who were present for the Nikah. According to him, he had performed Nikah as per instructions given by the petitioner and Vakil and ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:44:17 ::: 8 after performing Nikah, he went back. Although according to him, he possessed Sanad Jamiya Arbiya (authority for performing marriage), he was unable to produce any such document which authorises him to perform marriage according to Muslim Law. He also admitted that in the marriage certificate, his address was not mentioned. He had charged fees of Rs. 101/- and he went back to his residence after taking fees. Admittedly, he had not seen any type of Fatwah in which Nikah can be performed without presence of guardian of bride. His evidence, therefore, appears unsafe to rely upon.
11. Another witness Mohammad Hanif was examined on behalf of the petitioner in the Family Court who claims that he was present at the time of Nikah performed by Moulana Sakil. According to him, exhibit 51 bears his signature as witness and it was taken on the date of Nikah. According to him, Vakil Dr Arif (not examined) had asked respondent as to whether she was ready for Nikah and then accepted Nikah. Thereafter her signature was taken and Moulana Sakil asked petitioner as to whether he was ready for Nikah and petitioner accepted Nikah. This witness was cross-examined in detail. He admitted that relatives of respondent were not present at the time of Nikah.
Even parents and brother of petitioner were not present at the time of Nikah.
According to him, Nikah was performed at the residence of Dr Arif at Mominpura, Nagpur, but it was not so mentioned in the Nikah Nama as to in whose house Nikah was performed. He also admitted that although he was present for half an hour, there was no refreshment. In the same breath, he changed his version and voluntarily deposed that there was refreshment. He also admitted that appellant and respondent were residing by the side of each other's house and it was within his knowledge that respondent had lodged ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:44:17 ::: 9 complaint against the petitioner, his two brothers and mother. Thus, looking into evidence led on behalf of the petitioner, one cannot positively conclude that there was valid marriage in accordance with Muslim Law between appellant and respondent by her free consent. Merely making her nominee in the bank account by itself cannot be an evidence of a valid marriage between appellant and respondent. Learned Family Court also observed and rightly so, that there was no evidence of payment of prompt dower. Although requirements of valid Nikah were stated in the evidence, none of the witnesses appears to have adduced specific and acceptable evidence to establish that procedure was complied with, as stated, to enable appellant and respondent to enter into a valid marriage in accordance with Mohamedan Law. Muslims are governed by their personal laws under which Nikah i.e. marriage is a civil contract and may be permanent or temporary. All the ingredients of a valid contract must, therefore, be satisfied. A woman who has attained the age of puberty, who is of sound mind, is competent to enter into contract of marriage.
A validity of the contract would also depend upon free consent of both the contracting parties. A vakil is required to be voluntarily appointed to propose and for to accept the marriage. Free consent of the respondent was sine qua non for the valid Nikah. If her consent was obtained by coercion and fraud, it cannot lead to a valid marriage. A proposal must be made in the presence and hearing of two sane males or one sane male and two sane female adults, all Muslims and unqualified and absolute acceptance of the said proposals at the same time can constitute a valid Nikah under the Muslim Personal Law coupled with payment of prompt dower, but there appears no such evidence led in the present case. Respondent who deposed in support of her written statement ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:44:17 ::: 10 stated that the appellant was pressurising her to sign on paper and after he took her signature, he had told her that he took her signature on Nikah paper and when she asked him to return the papers, there was threat of life of her family members. One unknown person had told her that if she would complain, then there is possibility that petitioner who is her cousin brother, will suffer jail.
According to her, her family members were intending to settle the issue in the house only and they had asked the petitioner for the alleged Nikah papers for which the petitioner and his family members demanded a sum of Rs. 60,000/-
from her. In the result, she had issued legal notice on 9.5.1998 to the petitioner that so-called marriage dated 1.11.1997 was by fraud and per force and she had reported matter to the police. She had filed criminal complaint against appellant and others in which appellant and his family members were released on bail. Thus, according to respondent, so-called marriage was never held at Panipeth, Mominpura, Nagpur and she never cohabited with the appellant. She even denied her hand-writing and signatures on documents (exhibits 42 and
43). According to her, there was compromise talks between her family members and family members of appellant, but it was on the basis that there was no legal marriage between her and appellant. She explained her nomination by the appellant on the ground that she had filled in the application form as cousin sister of the appellant and because appellant had shown trust in her. She also denied having appointed any vakil for the purpose of marriage and entering into "Nikah" with the appellant. Her mother was also examined as witness who deposed that she had no knowledge about marriage between appellant and respondent on 1.11.1997. According to her, respondent was pressurised by the petitioner to sign on some blank paper by threatening her that he would kill her ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:44:17 ::: 11 brother. Respondent has also examined one common relative Abdul Rashil who knew the appellant and respondent as they were his cousins. According to him, there was no marriage between appellant and respondent. He deposed about his knowledge that petitioner used to pressurise respondent for marriage and, therefore, he had scolded the appellant (petitioner) and told him that it was not proper as respondent was his sister. Then petitioner had assured him that he is treating her as sister, but he wanted to take revenge against father of respondent. When documents prepared by the appellant were demanded back, appellant had demanded Rs. 60,000/- from the respondent's family.
12. Considering the evidence on record, it does appear that appellant and respondent were related to each other as cousins. They resided in the adjoining houses at the same address as their houses were divided by common partition. Claim of the appellant was not corroborated by any satisfactory proof as to valid Nikah as also as to cohabitation and consummation of marriage, as claimed. To us, presence of respondent at the time of alleged Nikah is doubtful as she did not make any mention of it nor there was any suggestion to her that she was present at the time of alleged Nikah. In order to succeed in a petition for restitution of conjugal rights, it was obligatory upon the appellant to prove the existence of a valid marriage between him and respondent. We have already observed that marriage in accordance with Islamic Law is a civil contract and in absence of free consent of the respondent, it was not possible for the petitioner-
appellant to enter into such marriage contract (Nikah). The first question, therefore, must be answered as nor proved. It is answered accordingly.
13. Although it is not necessary to go into next question as to whether the respondent had withdrawn from the society of the petitioner without ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:44:17 ::: 12 reasonable cause, it is necessary for the appellant in such case to establish that the other spouse has without reasonable excuse withdrawn from the society of the petitioner. The Court in such case if it is satisfied as to the truth of the averments made in the petition and also that there is no other legal ground as to why the petition/application shall not be granted, may decree restitution of conjugal right, as prayed for. In the case of Lachman Uttamchand v. Meena reported in AIR 1964 SC 40, the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court made reference to settled law as to burden of proof in such cases. It was observed that heavy burden lies upon a petitioner who seeks relief on the ground of desertion to prove four essential conditions, namely (1) the factum of separation; (2) animus deserendi; (3) absence of his or her consent and (4) absence of his or her conduct giving reasonable cause to the dewserting spouse to leave the matrimonial home. It was also further observed that he or she has to establish beyond reasonable doubt, to the satisfaction of the Court, the desertion through the entire period of two years (then statutory period required under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act) before the petition as well as that such desertion was without just cause. In other words, even if the wife, where she is the deserting spouse, does not prove just cause for her living apart, the petitioner-husband has still to satisfy the Court that the desertion was without just cause. Coming back to facts of the present case, although appellant had received notice dated 9.5.1998 (exhibit 44), appellant did not allege essential ingredients in respect of valid marriage (Nikah) as well as desertion according to law by the respondent which can constitute proof of a valid marriage and then desertion by her. In his reply to notice from the respondent (exhibit 45) no whisper was made about actual cohabitation and consummation of marriage ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:44:17 ::: 13 between appellant and respondent for a period of four months which he claims in the petition nor there is any reference to the alleged fact of visit to the house of respondent's parents and refusal by respondent's father to allow entry to the appellant in his house. The appellant did not plead in his petition that he and respondent had cohabited for a period of four months, as alleged, as also desertion (intentional abandonment) by the respondent. In these circumstances, when the appellant had failed to prove desertion, as alleged, the onus never shifted upon the respondent to show that she had withdrawn from his society with reasonable cause. Thus, looking at the evidence recorded before the Family Court and also pleadings, it has to be concluded that there was no satisfactory evidence so as to furnish a legal ground for the decree of restitution of conjugal right on the ground of desertion by the respondent. That being so, second point must also be answered in the negative. It is answered accordingly.
14. The last question is as to whether the appellant is entitled to a decree for restitution of conjugal right. In our opinion, considering the stand taken by the respondent in her notice dated 9.5.1998 which was issued prior to the institution of the petition, according to the respondent, she was heart patient and the petitioner had taken her on the pretext of taking her to a doctor known to him, but took her to hutment area of Sonegaon on 1.11.1997 to one house under threat to kiil her brothers if she refused to sign, obtained her signatures on papers by exerting pressure by use of force and fraud. According to respondent, she had lodged complaint to the police, but police did not take cognizance on the ground that it was a civil matter. The respondent had denied her marital status as alleged by the petitioner and refused to accept the notice of ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:44:17 ::: 14 the petition in the trial Court on the ground that petitioner is playing fraud by wrongly describing her name as his wife. She had raised objection before the trial Court on 10.7.1998 contending that she is unmarried practicing doctor informing the trial Court that she had lodged Criminal Case No. 87 of 1998 under Sections 506, 294 and 496 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Under these circumstances, therefore, the burden of proof was upon the petitioner to prove Nikah and consummation of marriage in accordance with Islamic law. The petitioner had failed to discharge the heavy onus of proof to establish the solemnization of a valid Muslim marriage, a civiol contract, in the eye of law with free consent of the respondent as also the consequent cohabitation for alleged period of four months, as alleged. The evidence indicate that the family members of the petitioner and the respondent were absent at the time of alleged Nikah. The alleged presence of the respondent at the specific place of marriage at Panipeth, Mominpura on 1.11.1997 as contended itself remains doubtful for want of evidence beyond reasonable doubt. According to the appellant, marriage was solemnized at the house of Dr Arif Khan. But Dr Arif is not examined to prove it for reason best known to the appellant. According to the case of the respondent, the appellant was trying to blackmail the respondent by demanding sum of Rs. 60,000/- for to return document on which he had obtained signature of the respondent under threat and by force. We feel, on the evidence before the trial Court, if the trial Court believed that petitioner has not come to the Court with clean hands or that his own conduct as a party has been unworthy or his petition was filed with ulterior motives and not in good faith, or that it would be unjust to compel the wife to live with him in the facts and circumstances, the trial Court can refuse to pass a ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:44:18 ::: 15 decree for restitution of conjugal right. Learned Judge of Family Court has appreciated the oral evidence on record properly and arrived at a correct conclusion in the facts and circumstances stated by us that the appellant had failed to establish the factum of marriage in accordance with Islamic Law, as claimed. Furthermore, he failed to establish desertion by the respondent. In these circumstances, we do not find any ground made out for to interfere with the impugned judgment and order.
15. In the result, therefore, the appeal must be dismissed. Appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs.
A. P. BHANGALE, J B. P. DHARMADHIKARI, J
joshi
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:44:18 :::