Smt. Dwarki Bai vs Gansya

Rajendra Menon, J.—Challenge in this appeal u/s 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is made to a judgment and decree dated 16/07/01 passed by the Distt. Judge, East Nimar, Khandwa in Civil Suit No. 96-A/97 whereby an application filed by the appellant wife u/s 9 of the Restitution of Conjugal Rights is rejected. It is the case of the appellant that she was married to one Kadwa and out of this wedlock, she had four children. It is said that she got divorce from the said Shri Kadwa sometimes in the year 1995 and, thereafter, respondent herein Shri Gansya got married to her, inspite of the fact that he was aware of the earlier marriage, divorce etc. of the petitioner, it is said that the marriage between the appellant and the respondent was performed in the year 1997. The marriage was said to be a ''''PAT Marriage''''. Thereafter, they lived for sometime for about an year and a half. However, when the respondent treated her with cruelty and deserted her and when he was unwilling to keep her with him, the suit in question was filed for restitution of conjugal rights.

Notices were issued, respondents appeared and filed the written statement but, thereafter, remained absent, as a result, ex parte proceedings were held. Based on the pleadings, the learned trial Court framed two issues, they were:-

(a). Whether the parties are married and are husband and wife.

(b). Whether the material available on record is sufficient enough to pass a decree for restitution of conjugal rights in favour of the appellant.

Appellant examined herself and two more witnesses and stated that she was married to the respondent by the Hindu custom of ''PAT'' and stated that the respondent has deserted her. She has also produced three documents in support of her contention to say that her claim is established. However, the learned trial Court having dismissed the suit, this appeal is filed.

Shri Virendra Verma, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the suit of the appellant is dismissed mainly on two counts. The first ground is that the plaintiff has failed to prove by producing adequate documents that her marriage with Shri Kadwa was dissolved. It was held by the Court that the divorce is not proved. According to Shri Verma before the trial Court, the appellant on improper advice could not file the papers of divorce but the same are filed in the appeal along with an application under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. which goes to show that in Civil Suit No. 49-A/94 a decree of divorce was passed on 1/02/95. Accordingly, Shri Virendra Verma contends that the divorce with the first husband is now established from the available material.

It is thereafter submitted by Shri Virendra Verma that the trial Court has held that the appellant has failed to prove that she had contacted the marriage with the respondent. The Court has held that even though the appellant says that she had undergone ''''PAT Marriage'''' but she has failed to prove as to what is ''PAT Marriage'' and lead evidence in support thereof.

Shri Virendra Verma invited our attention to the judgment rendered by the Nagpur High Court in the case of AIR 1946 232 (Nagpur) wherein, reference to the system of marriage known as ''''PAT Marriage'''' is shown to be a recognized and an approved form of marriage under the Hindu Religious System Custom and submits that ''''PAT Marriage'''' is a recognized form of marriage under the Hindu Law and, therefore, the marriage of the appellant with the respondent is proved. He further places reliance on a judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of Ningu Vithu Bamane and Others Vs. Sadashiv Ningu Bamane and Others, to say that when the appellant entered into the witness box and has stated that she has performed ''PAT Marriage'', the same should be accepted by the trial Court in the absence of any rebuttal from the respondent.

In holding that the marriage between the parties is not proved, Shri Virendra Verma emphasized that a perverse finding is recorded by the trial Court. He also places reliance on the three documents filed by the appellant Ex. P-1 to show that the respondent has given an affidavit to the appellant sworn before the Notary to say that the respondent had married the appellant. Two documents Ex. P-2 and P-3 to say that while submitting his list of family members in the Government department where the respondent was working and while withdrawing certain provident fund, respondent is shown to have indicated the appellant to be his wife. Reference is also made to a photo-copy of the notice Ex. P-4 allegedly sent by the respondent husband to the appellant through his counsel on 4/09/97 and by these documents, it is stated that the marriage of the appellant with the respondent is established.

Taking us through the statement of witnesses, Shri Virendra Verma emphasized that the overwhelming evidence available on record which was unchallenged by cross-examination or by adducing of evidence on rebuttal does show that the marriage between the parties is solemnized. They were living as husband and wife and in holding that the marriage between the parties is not proved, a perverse finding is recorded.

Shri Kaustubh Jha refuted the aforesaid and argued that the marriage between the parties has to be proved by leading cogent evidence. It was emphasized by him that the Nagpur High Court in the case of Mahadeo Sheoram (supra) has considered the question as to what is a ''PAT Marriage'' and if the findings recorded by the High Court in the said case and the system of marriage as indicated therein is taken note of, it would be seen that this marriage consisted of certain ceremony which has to be performed and exchange of a rupee is to be made and, therefore, even if a marriage is held under this system, certain ceremonies are to be conducted.

Shri Kaustubh Jha referred to the averments made by the appellant in the plaint and says that except for saying in para 1 of the plaint that the appellant got married to the respondent under the pat system, there is no averment to show as to where, in what manner after following of which ceremony and before whom, the marriage was performed. That apart, he refers to the statement of witness namely the appellant who was examined as PW-1 and says that even in her evidence she does not say that what was the ceremony which was undertaken for the marriage, in whose presence the marriage was done and who were present when the ceremonies were performed. Her oral statement to the effect that pat was performed, according to Shri Kaustubh Jha is not sufficient enough to hold that the marriage was solemnized. He thereafter referred to statement of PW-2 and PW-3 to say that both the witness are not witness to the marriage. PW-2 says that the parties were living as a tenant in his house. PW-3 has given a statement that respondent has issued a notice to the appellant Ex. P-4, Shri Kaustubh Jha submitted that the complete reading of the documents and material available on record does not show how marriage between the parties was solemnized and, therefore, in rejecting the claim on the ground that the marriage is not proved to have been solemnized between the parties, no error is committed warranting interference into the matter.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. As already indicated hereinabove, the trial Court has dismissed the suit of the appellant mainly on two consideration. The first one was that divorce between the wife and her first husband Kadwa was not proved. The second was that plaintiff has failed to prove her marriage with the present respondent.

As far as the first ground is concerned, available on record is a proceeding initiated under Order 41 Rule 27 is the certified copy of a decree passed by the Court of competent jurisdiction showing dissolution of marriage between the appellant and her first husband. The certified copy of a judgment and decree dated 1/02/95 passed in Civil Suit No. 49-A/94 does show that the divorce was effected. Under such circumstances, we hold that the appellant has now proved dissolution of her marriage with her first husband Shri Kadwa. Having held so, now the moot question which warrants consideration in this appeal is that as to whether from the documents and evidence available on record, marriage between the appellant and the respondent is established.

According to the averments made in the plaint, in para 1, appellant makes a very vague statement to say that the parties have undergone pat two years back in their village. Thereafter, the same statement is made by her when she was examined as PW-1 before the trial Court, i.e. in para 1 of the examination-in-chief, she only says that I have undergone pat with the respondent three years back and before this pat, I was married to Kadwa from whom I had obtained a divorce.

As far as pat system of marriage is concerned, the Nagpur High Court in the case of Mahadeo Sheoram (supra) has elaborately dealt with the matter and it is held that this is a custom of marriage which is normally performed with a widow who is remarried in this system. The bridegroom pays a rupee to the bride and certain religious ceremonies are said to be held. It is therefore clear that even though pat is an approved form of marriage under the Hindu law but it is performed by following certain ceremonies and, therefore, it was the case of the appellant that she was married to the respondent under the pat system of marriage. Keeping in view the aforesaid, she should have adduced cogent evidence to show as to what were the ceremonies held, who were present when such ceremonies were held and when it was performed.

If the evidence adduced by the appellant is scrutinized, it would be seen that except for making a bald statement in para 1 of the plaint and, thereafter, in para 1 of the examination-in-chief to say that pat has been performed between the parties, appellant does not say as to where, before whom and after following which particular ritual or ceremony, pat has been performed.

That apart, not a single witness to the ceremony and ritual performed or marriage is adduced. The witness PW-2 and PW-3 do not say anything about the marriage between the parties. That being so, it is only the sole oral testimony of the appellant, without any supporting evidence or material which is available on record to say that the parties were married. When a marriage is to be performed by following a particular system or ritual or ceremony and if a person comes out with a case that the marriage was performed under the said system, it is incumbent for the person concerned making the said assertion to adduce cogent evidence to show that all requirements of the system, the ceremonies and rituals were performed.

In the absence of such a detailed evidence being adduced, it is not appropriate to hold that the marriage by a particular system has been performed. The evidence adduced by the appellant oral in nature is not sufficient enough to say that a ''PAT Marriage'' was solemnized between the parties. That apart, if the other evidence available on record is evaluated, it would be seen that PW-2 Dayaram claims to be a distant uncle of the appellant. He says that he was not witness to the pat but he only says that the parties lived in his house as tenant for sometime. Thereafter, PW-3 Shri Ramesh Chandra Choubey is an Advocate who says that on behalf of the respondent husband, he issued notice Ex. P-4 but the original documents and the notice were stolen from the brief case and they are not available with him. A typed copy of the notice is produced to say that at the instance of the respondent husband, he issued a notice. The statement of these two witnesses do not say that the appellant and respondent were married as per the pat ceremony.

That apart from the documents, it would be seen that Ex. P-1 is an affidavit sworn on 8/05/95 attested by a Notary and said to bear the signature of the respondent, wherein the respondent says that he is married to the appellant under the pat system. Appellant only says that in this affidavit, the signature of the respondent is in a portion mark A to A. Neither the Notary who notarized the affidavit, nor the documents in support thereof are produced. Ex. P-2 is a photo-copy of the certificate allegedly submitted by the respondent who is employer of the Veterinary Department consisting a list of his family members and according to the appellant, in this list at serial no. 2, appellant is shown as wife of the respondent. This is a photo-copy of the document. The original is not available and it is not known as to how and from where the appellant got this document, which is document said to be submitted by the respondent to his Department.

That apart, Ex. P-3 is a form said to have been submitted by the respondent to his departmental head from his provident fund account on 8/07/96 and in this, it is stated that he wants to withdraw the amount for treatment of his wife. However, in this document, name of the present appellant is not mentioned. It only says that amount is needed for treatment of his wife. If the document Ex. P-2 and P-3 are read conjointly, it is seen that the respondent husband is working as an Asstt. Veterinary Field Officer in the Veterinary Department under the Dy. Director, Veterinary Services, Khandwa. Except for making a bare statement by the appellant about these documents, no representative or the Departmental official is examined. If the respondent is a Government employee and if in the Government official records, the appellant was shown as a wife, the appellant could very well summon the official records and witnesses from the Government department and establish these facts. By only producing photocopies of certain documents which are not authenticated and which are not proved in accordance with law, we are unable to hold that appellant has established her marriage with the respondent.

Similarly, Ex. P-4 is said to be a notice issued by the respondent to the plaintiff and PW-3 Shri Ramesh Chandra Dubey says that he knows the appellant Smt. Dwarki Bai. She was working for him previously. There was some dispute between her and her husband and in this regard, her husband has sent a notice to her. He says that he had brought the notice to the Court for preparing the reply on behalf of the plaintiff but it has been stolen from the Court premises and he is producing typed copy of the same. The statement of this witness available on record seems to be highly suspicious. This notice was allegedly sent by one Advocate Shri Ramdeen Bhati and if the notice was sent by such an Advocate, the Advocate could have been summoned as a witness to prove issuance of the notice, this is also not done.

After analyzing the evidence available on record as is indicated hereinabove, we are of the considered view that the evidence available on record does not conclusively prove that the marriage between the parties was solemnized as stated by the appellant in the plaint and canvassed at the time of evidence. Various lacunas are there in the evidence and the factum of the marriage being solemnized between the parties is not proved by leading proper evidence which should be available to prove this fact, persons like witness to the marriage or ceremonies performed are not produced, records from the Government department to show that in the official record, appellant is shown as a wife are not produced. Documents are not proved in accordance with the requirement of law and accordingly, we are of the considered view that except for making a bald oral statement that pat was performed, there is no other cogent evidence available on record to hold so and in the absence of any definite evidence to show that ''PAT Marriage'' between the parties was performed, contention of the appellant cannot be accepted. The evidence available on record are substantial enough to hold that a marriage was not performed between the parties.

In view of the above, we are of the considered view in holding that a marriage between the parties is not performed, the learned trial Court has not committed any error warranting interference. The appeal is therefore dismissed, no order on cost.