Parmeshwari vs Parkash Chander

Gokul Chand Mittal, J.—On hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, we are of the view that there is no scope for interference with the well considered judgment of the learned Single Judge.

In order to appreciate the case, the following pedigreetable may be kept in view:

Mukhtiar Singh ------------------------------------------------------------- | | | | | Parmeshwari=Ishwar Singh=Dalip Singh Parkash Chander 4th Son 5th Son Botti Ishwar Singh and Dalip Singh were married to Parmeshwari and Botti respectively on the same day in the year 1959, Parmeshwari and Botti are sisters. In 1961 Ishwar Singh was discharged from Army and thereafter be was not heard of for 7/8 years and-in November, 1969 she was married to Parkash Chander, brother of her first husband, under the customary form of marriage (Kareva) and since he had deserted her without any sufficient cause, sought a decree of restitution of conjugal rights.

Parkash Chander denied the alleged Kareva form of marriage. Later-on the petition was amended in order to plead that in the. community to which the parties belonged a marriage could be dissolved under custom on the ground of either party becoming mentally insane or having been not heard of for a period of 2/3 years, the other spouse can enter in the Kareva form of marriage. It was thus pleaded that her first husband had become insane and his whereabouts were not known for 7/8 years, and, therefore, her Kareva marriage with Parkash Chand was legal and she was entitled to restitution of conjugal rights.

In order to determine whether Ishwar Singh had become insane and was not heard of for 7/8 years, as pleaded by the wife, there is evidence on record that till 1975, Ishwar Singh was heard of and there is no evidence that he had become insane. Hence, the very basis of the claim for entering into Kareva form of marriage is knocked out, even if it assumed for the sake of argument that there was such a custom. Equally important is the fact that the, appellant has failed to prove the Kareva form of marriage. Since on both questions of fact, the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge are supported by evidence, it is hardly necessary to discuss each piece of evidence separately in the judgment.

It is also not disputed that after 1975 Ishwar Singh was not heard of and his share in the property has been given to the appellant.

However, before parting it may be mentioned that during the pendency of the proceedings, the respondent was directed to pay maintenance to the appellant. The Counsel for the respondent made a concession before us that his client will not claim back the maintenance amount paid to the wife.

For the reasons recorded above, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.