Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. Learned counsel for the parties are heard.

5. Judgment and decree impugned and copy of other documents perused.

6. In the present case, original records of both the Courts below were lost and by the assistance of both the parties file was reconstituted.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that ocular and documentary evidence adduced both the parties are sufficient to prove the fact that Mst. Mahmooda was legally wedded wife of deceased Alfred alias Alfi and one Smt. Joshephine was not his legally wedded wife. She was simply concubine wife and son born out of the wedlock of Alfred alias Alfi, Jani was not legitimate son of the Alfred alias Alfi.

11. In the present case, it is not disputed that Smt. Joshephine was residing for long time together with Alfred alias Alfi as his wife and out of their marital relation, Jani was born. Factum of valid marriage with Smt. Josephine was denied by the Alfred alias Alfi. In the present suit, Alfred and Mrs. Alfred were defendants. Alfred alias Alfi had received the summon from Mrs. Alfred shows that she was residing with the Alfred alias Alfi. She was best witness to unfold the real story and to establish the fact that she was concubine of Alfred alias Alfi and she was not legally wedded wife of Alfred alias Alfi but reasons best known Alfred alias Alfi has not examined as a witness.

12. On the other hand, Alfred alias Alfi has not filed any document in his support to show that any heir of Alfred alias Alfi had shown Smt. Joshephine as his concubine. In these circumstances, Court below has rightly held that during alleged claim of marriage with Mst. Mahmooda, Alfred alias Alfi was having wife Smt. Joshephine who was alive therefore in terms of Section 60 of the Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872 during subsistence of first marriage of Alfred alias Alfi with Smt. Joshephine the second marriage with Mst. Mahmooda was void. Consequently, substantial question of law formulated for this second appeal is decided as positive. On the basis of finding of substantial question of law formulated for decision of this second appeal, second appeal is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.