Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

31. One is at a loss to understand as to what was the object or purpose or even propriety in performing the second marriage with the same wife over again after about three and hald years. No written invitations were issued about the so-called Nikah ceremony. The learned Judge in para 48 of his judgment has observed that the manner in which the ceremonies are stated to have taken place did not appear to him as natural. No Nikahnama is produced. There is no record of conversion. Thee are no photographs of the ceremonies viz. Conversion or Nikah. The entry dated 29-12-69 is practically at the end of the register and had not seen light of the day till ti was produced in court and therefore in substance it is held by the earned Judge cumstances are relevant in appreciating the evidence both oral and documentary while deciding the issues of conversion and Nikah. The learned Judge of the trial court has considered the oral evidence in the light of these surrounding circumstances and in our view rightly, therefore, it is not possible for us to accept the contention of Shri Mody that the finding recorded by the learned Judge in that behalf is perverse. Apart from these circumstances. In our opinion there are certain other circumstances which made the story of conversion doubtful.

"Whenever the parties come for Nikah I asked them their names. If I find that the party is non-muslim, I ask that person whether be or she was willing to embrace Lslam willingly, if that person consents the I makes him or her recite Kalma. This is my invariable practice in cases of non-Muslime coming for Nika" But for saying this he does not speak about the factum of conversion or the fact that in fact the defendant wife was asked to recite any Kalma or he had even asked her name. Thus his evidence is not direct evidence of conversion. Then he speaks about Nikah ceremony. However, in para 4 of his deposition he has stated that he does not remember whether by had prepared at that time Nikah. He admitted that he belonged to Konkani Jamat, which seems to be Jamat of the plaintiff. He is not aware of the existence of the Bombay Marriage Registration Act. He does not recollect what name was told to him by the defendant nor he is in a position to say definitely as to whether he had asked the defendant whether she was prepared to embrace Islam religion. In pare 7 of his deposition he stated that he cannot remember the place where Nikah took place and in the register the place of Nikah is not entered. He has admitted that so far as the rigister is concerned, some pages towards the end of the rigister are blank. He also admitted that he does not maintain any record about converting a person to Islam and he does not hold any Sanad of Qazi. He also did not remember time or the date on which Nikah of the plaintiff was performed. He then admitted that general practice is to keep a record, He also admitted that he takes signatures of both parties after preparing Nikahname. His attention was drawn to one of such Nikahnama Ex. 8 which related to other marriage. He also admitted in para 13 of his deposition that the column is provided for Nikah form where the Quzi makes entries such as whether bride is a widowed woman or is a divorcee etc. He also admitted that if bride or bridegroom had been converted to Islam before Nikah, he writes in the column serial number of the certificate issued by Nake Masjid about his or her conversion. He then admitted in para 17 of his deposition that the presence of Vakil is necessary at the time of Nikah to give consent of the bride besides fixing Meher etc. This witness was not to a position to remember anything about Nikah of Zubeda, sister of the plaintiff which took place in the year 1978, though he has tried to depose about Nikah which took place in the year 1969 about 10 years back. In this context it is also pertinent to note that Shri Abdul Aziz Murghey (P.W 2) who is Naib Qazi of Bombay since the last 35 years and who is examined by the plaintiff to prove. Talaqnama has stated in his deposition that his office maintains Nikahnama register which is in the nature of form. He also stated that as a rule he obtains signatures of both the parties to Nikah on the Nikahnama and normal to Nikah on the Nikahnama and normally parties do sign Nikahnama. Thus it appears that Nikahname is normally written. Therefore the learned Judge was quite right in discarding the evidence of Qazi Palobs. This is more so when there is no written record about the conversion and he does not speak about having made the defendant recite Kalma.

35. The other evidence on record viz. The evidence of (P.Ws. 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9) is at the most in the nature of conrroboration to the evidence of Qazi (P.A. 3) Therefore if the main evidence of Qazi itself cannot be believed or is of little assistance for provising the factum of conversion and Nikah, then on the basis of other evidence on record it is not possible to record a conclusive finding in that behalf. All Shanmshi (p.W. 4) is the friend of the plaintiff. So far as his examination-in-chief is concerned, his affidavit dated 9-5-1978 was produced on record and he was tendered for cross-examination. He was stated in his deposition that he had gone alone to attend the marriage. He has stated in his deposition that he had gone alone to attend the marriage. He then stated that in fact Nikah was performed by Qazi in the evening and he does not remember the exact time. He also admitted that he is secretary of the Konkani Ambulance Society and director of Konkan Mercantile Bankand it appears that the plaintiff is also associated with the said institutions. According to him it was Qazi Palobs who has conducted the conversion ceremony as welll as the Nikah ceremony. Though he has stated that before Nikah, conversion ceremony had taken place, it was not possible for him to give the details. He also stated that as far as he remembers the plaintiff had not tole him any time about his intention to divorce the defendant. Thus the evidence of this witness is also vague. Abdul Kadar Divekar (p. W. 5) is another witness whi is also a friend of the plaintiff. According to him the defendant was made to recite Kaling at the time of conversion. He also stated that he had acted as Vakil at the time of Nikah. He then stated about the subsequent conduct of the defendant and has stated that she was behaving like a Muslim lady meaning thereby that she used to say "salam". "Khuda Hafiz" ect. In para 13 of his evidence he stated that be may have singed on Nikahnama in both of his marriages. Then in para 14 be stated that as far as he remembers, at the time of Nikah of the plaintiff and the defendant a Nikahname as written and he had signed over it. He then stated that as far as his memory goes he had signed over only one Nikahnama form at that time. However, so far as the plaintiff is concerned in para 129 of his deposition he stated that he does not remember if he has signed on the Nikahnama at the time of Nikah. Qazi Paloba stated in his deposition that he does not remember whether he had prepared at that time any Nikahname. Then in para 12 of the deposition Divekar has stated that 10 years have passed, he does not remember all the details of the ceremony. This witness is allenged to have acted as a Vakil. However in para 15 of his deposition he had admitted that he has not acted as Vakil in any other Nikah except this. He also admitted that at the time of Nikah often bride and bridegroom are made to stay in separate rooms. He further admitted that ordinarily Vakil is a person from blood relation of bride. He also could not say whether it is a rule that the bride has to give consent or Vakil has to act on her behalf. It was also not possible for him to say as to who actually fixed Meher at the time of Nikah between the plaintiff and the defendant. Thus it is doubtful as to whether he had acted as a Vakil at all. To say the least his evidence is also beautifully vague. Yusuf Khan (P.W 6) is a relative of the plaintiff. He also speaks about the conversion and Nikah ceremony which were conducted by Qazi Paloba as well as the subsequent conduct of the defendant. In para 14 of his deposition he has stated that he does not remember whether he had signed over the Nikahnama on 29-12-1969. Then in para 18 he stated that he could not bear what exactly was spoken by Qazi and by the defendant between themselves as he was sitting in a soft voice. Therefore his evidence is to some extent based on his evidence is to some extent based on his own guess-work. In para 19 of his deposition he admitted that in the marriage of Zubeda Nikahnama was made. He also stated that he could not say whether the Qazi who officiated at the Nikah of Zubeda. It was then suggested to him that the Qazi Paloba as he was Assistant Commissioner of Police (CID) and by using the said influence he has obtained certificate from Qazi. This suggestion was dented by the witness. Thus the evidence of this witness is also of little assistance. The evidence of other witness viz. P. W. 7 Dr. Baillur is also streeo-tyoe. In para 7 he has stated that he was not aware of disputes between the plaintiff and defendant till filing of the suit. It was no possible for him to give details about the marriage ceremony of Farhad, the sister of the plaintiff, which was a recent one and be had attended the said marriage. This witness is a close friend of the plaintiff. P.W 9 Farhad is the sister of the plaintiff. At the time of alleged conversion and Nikah she was about 14 or 15 years of age. Initially in the examination-in-chief she stated that she stated that she does not aware of disputes between the plaintiff and defendant till filing of the suit. It was not possible for him to give details about the marriage ceremony of Farhad, the sister of the plaintiff, which was a recent one and he had attended the said marriage. This witness is a close friend of the plaintiff. P. W. 9 Farhad is the sister of the plaintiff. At the time of alleged conversion and Jikah she was abot 14 or 15 years of age. Initially in the examination-in-chief she stated that she does not remember as to whether the plaintiff and the defendant were married again according to Muslim rites after their coming to India. Thereafter Interpreter was called and then the questions were again asked to her in Urdu. This witness has studied up to B.A. standard and therefore it cannot be said that earlier she could not understand the question. She had admitted that the marriage photographs were taken at the time of her marriage. She also stated that she does not know what customs the defendant wife was following prior to 29-12-1969 but according to her after that date she was following Muslim customs. She also stated in para 2 of her deposition that even prior to the conversion and Nikah ceremonies she herself and members of her family used to know the defendant on Pervin, From her evidence it is clear the photographs were being taken at the time of marriages. Admittedly no photographs were taken when the marriage of the plaintiff and defendant took place in England. On record, there are one or two photographs of the father of the plaintiff. Therefore the absence of photograph at such an important function when both thje plaintiff and the defendant are not only educated but were leading a modern life is a circumstance which is relevant for deciding the theory of conversion and subsequent. Nikah. So far as the plaintiff's evidence is concerned, itis obvioulsly an interested testimony. To say the least the other evidence on record can only render corroboration to the evidence of Qazi Paloba who had conducted the conversion as well as Nikah ceremonies. Once his evidence is disbelieved, then obviously the other evidence is not of much assistance to prove the facturn of conversion. We have also on record the earlier affidavits filed by plaintiff and his father, These affidavits were filed in the year 1978, The evidence of the defendant is obviously negative. However, it is pertinent to not relevant for deciding the question of conversion and Nikah. According to her there was no conversion and Nikah and the whole story is false. Further we do not find any good or compelling reason so that the defendant should decide to get herself converted to Islam. Her case of denial gets. Substantial corroboration in subsequent events namly the opinion of Bank account, entries in birth register and ration card wherein her name is still shown as Padma. Therefore, to us the whole story of conversion and subsequent Nikah sounds most improbable. It the said case of the plaintiff Is tested on the touchstone of probabilities, it will have to be hdl that the plaintiff has failed to prove conversion or Nikah. Therefore, if cumulative effect of all this evidence is considered together with surrounding circumstances, it cannot be said that the view taken by the trial Court is not the correct view of the evidence.