Suresh vs Kalarani

G. Rajasuria, J.—Heard the Learned counsel for the petitioner. The nitty-gritty, the gist and kernel of the case of the plaintiff, absolutely

necessary for the disposal of the Revision would run thus:

The Revision Petitioner-Suresh filed a plaint seeking the following reliefs:-

a) To pass a declaration decree that the registration deed dated 14.08.2007 is to be declared as null and void.

b) The costs of the suit.

c) And pass such other and suitable orders as this Hon''ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice.

The cause of action as stated by the petitioner in paragraph-9 of the plaint averments, is as under:-

Cause of action arose on 14.08.2007 when the marriage of the plaintiff and the defendant got registered without any ceremonies at Kulathoor

Sub Registrar Office and thereafter they started living mutually as husband and wife at above place of Kothanalloor Village and when the plaintiff

got the information the defendant living with another man from 27.09.2010 and thereafter when the plaintiff living separately at Kothanalloor Village

in Kalkulam Talk within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court which comes rightly under the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court.

Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said marriage, the petitioner has filed this Revision.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would pyramid his argument to the effect that the marriage took place, but it was not consummated, but the

only thing is that the marriage document dated 14.08.2007 was got registered with the Sub-Registrar concerned. No proper marriage under the

Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1892 took place at all. Hence the prayer in the suit is within the Civil Court''s jurisdiction. He would rely on the

decision of this Court reported in Kennedy Sigamani and Others Vs. Kiruba Gnanaseeli Prema and Another, in the case of Kennedy Sigamani v.

Kiruba Gnanaseeli Prema. Excerpts from the said decision would run thus:

Other three questions could be considered together. Learned counsel for appellants submitted that parties are Christians and they are governed

by Indian Christians Marriage Act. It is argued that u/s 4 of the Act, a marriage could be solemnized only if certain conditions are satisfied and

even on plaint allegations, it is clear that plaintiffs have not satisfied those conditions. Courts below were therefore not correct in declaring the

status of first plaintiff as wife and second plaintiff as his child.

It is true that under Indian Christian Marriage Act, certain formalities are to be satisfied for marriage among Christians. It is also true that plaint

does not disclose that those formalities are satisfied. First plaintiff only says that first defendant took Bible and placing it on his hands declared that

she is his wife. First defendant is none other than son of a Parish Priest. First plaintiff believed the statement of first defendant holding the Bible on

his hands and declaring her as wife is sufficient for a valid marriage. It is only after she became pregnant and the matter was known to other

members of family, they wanted a marriage solemnized in accordance with the Act. Neither first defendant nor second defendant agreed for the

same and compromise also failed.

I would like to refer to Section 27 of the Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872, which runs thus:

Marriages when to be registered.-All parties hereafter solemnized in India between persons one or both of whom professes or profess the

Christian religion, except marriages solemnized under Part V or Part VI of this Act, shall be registered in manner hereinafter prescribed.

A bare reading of the aforesaid provision would highlight and spotlight that the Christian marriage could be performed not in any manner the

parties may like, but only in a particular manner as contemplated under the Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872. A bare reading of the plaint

would unambiguously and axiomatically makes it clear that the plaintiff and the defendant did not undergo any marriage in accordance with the

Indian Christian Marriage Act. The plaint averments would govern the maintainability of the suit. As such, as of now, there is no marriage between

the plaintiff and the defendant could be inferred. It is stated that the deed dated 14.08.2007 was got registered with the Sub-Registrar and

according to him, there is no bar for the Civil Court to look into the matter and make a declaration as prayed for. If at all there was any marriage

which actually took place between the plaintiff and the defendant, the question of the plaintiff approaching the District Court either u/s 18 or 19 of

the Divorce Act, would arise. But in this case, no such event took place at all. As per the version of the plaintiff, at the time of numbering the suit,

the Court can only take into consideration the averments in the plaint and the Court cannot read anything a new into it. However, the Court at the

time of numbering the plaint itself can apply Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act which is extracted hereunder:

Discretion of Court as to declaration of status or right.-Any person entitled to any legal character, or to any right as to any property, may

institute a suit against any person denying, or interested to deny, his title to such character or right, and the Court may in its discretion make therein

a declaration that he is so entitled, and the plaintiff need not in such suit ask for any further relief:

Provided that no Court shall make any such declaration where the plaintiff, being able to seek further relief than a mere declaration of title, omits to

do so.

The prayer in the plaint is only with regard to declaration of the Registration Deed dated 14.08.2007 and nothing more. As per Order II Rule 2 of

CPC r/w Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, if at all his case is a true one as per his averments, he should seek for proper declaration of his

status and if he does so, the Court can consider it. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No costs.