Smt. Pukhadi etc. vs Paras Ram

R.S. Pathak, C.J.—This appeal arises out of proceedings for restitution of conjugal rights u/s 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

The Respondent Paras Ram filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights, alleging that he was married to the first Appellant, Smt. Pukhadi, and that she had left him subsequently and had refused to return. The case of the first Appellant is that she was never married to Paras Ram and, on the contrary, she was married to the second Appellant Khimu.

The learned District Judge has held that the first Appellant and the Respondent were married, the marriage being performed by the custom of giving meals to the marriage party. Reliance has been placed on the custom embodied in the answer to Question No. 16 of the Riwaj-i-am (Tribal Custom), Kulu Sub-Division. The learned District Judge has also granted an injunction preventing the first Appellant from going to Paras Ram.

In this appeal, it has been urged by Learned Counsel for the Appellants that the learned District Judge has erred in holding that the first Appellant was married to Paras Ram. It is contended that custom required the performance of Ganesh Puja and no such Puja was ever performed when the first Appellant is alleged to have married Paras Ram. The question is whether the performance of Ganesh Puja was necessary for completing the marriage alleged between Paras Ram and the first Appellant. Question No. 16 of the Riwaj-i-am mentioned above and the answer there to, are set out.

Question 16. Ceremonies of marriage.--With what ceremonies is a marriage celebrated and what ceremonies make the marriage binding? Is it customary to execute a writing to that effect?

Answer (1) All the tribes reply that marriages in the whole of the Sub-Division excluding Waziri Lahaul and Spiti are performed by giving meals to the marriage party. In very few cases amongst high class Brahmins, Khatris and Rajputs, Vedic rites are performed; but generally it is only completed with Ganesh Puja. Amongst poorer people it is only performed by the execution of deed. Agreement deeds are usually executed in Tehsil Kulu whereas in Sub-Tehsil Seraj, Rupi and Lahaul, this custom exists, but rarely.

Admittedly, Paras Ram and the first Appellant belong to the Sub-Tehsil Seraj in Kulu. It is also admitted that they are Hari-jans by caste. On a proper construction of the custom recited above, it is apparent that in the case of high class Brahmins, Khatris and Rajputs the marriage ceremony is completed with Ganesh Puja, in a few cases Vedic rites are performed. All other communities, that is those who are not Brahmins, Khatris and Rajputs, perform their marriages by merely giving meals ''to the marriage party, and where they are very poor a mere deed is executed. There is ample material on the record to support the finding of the learned District Judge that meals were served to the marriage party when the marriage of Paras Ram was performed with the first Appellant. The marriage, having been solemnised according to custom, was valid and I accordingly affirm the finding of the learned District Judge to that effect.

Learned Counsel for the Appellants, however, also contends that there is no justification for the grant of an injunction against the remaining Appellants. On consideration of the matter, I find myself in agreement with the Learned Counsel. No ground has been specified by the learned District Judge for issuing such an injunction. On the contrary, it is apparent from the evidence on the record that the first Appellant is living with Khimu of her own accord and there is no acceptable evidence indicating that he and the other Appellants were imposing any restraint on her preventing her from going to Paras Ram.

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in so far only that the injunction granted by the learned District Judge against the first, third and fourth Appellants is vacated. The decree for restitution of conjugal rights is affirmed. There is no order as to costs.