A PANDURANGAN Vs. GOWRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the concurrent findings of the Courts below, the unsuccessful husband has filed the above appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act read with Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) THE case of the appellant is briefly stated hereunder:? It is stated that the respondent herein filed H.M.O.P. No. 29 bf 1993 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Dindigul against the appellant herein for restitution of conjugal rights. She filed the said petition on the basis that they married on 26.9.87 at 5 p.m. in the residence of her (respondent) friend at Vathalagundu by exchange of garlands under Self Respect form of marriage (Suya Mariathai way) in the presence of respondent's friends. It is further stated that however the petitioner/appellant herein has denied the status of the respondent as his wife and refused to live with her. Hence she filed the said petition. THE petition filed by the wife was resisted by the appellant by filing counter statement inter alia contending that he is not his wife and the petition for restitution of conjugal rights is not maintainable. THE trial Court without properly considering the facts, erroneously allowed the petition and passed orders in favour of the wife on 4.7.97. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant herein preferred an appeal in CMA No. 15 of 97 on the file of Principal District Judge, Dindigul. THE Appellate Court also committed the same error and dismissed the appeal and confirmed the orders passed by the trial Court on 16.3.98. Having aggrieved by the same, the appellant has preferred the present Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal.

(3.) IN the light of the rival contentions, I shall consider whether the respondent/wife had established her case that the marriage between herself and the appellant was performed on 26.9.87 in accordance with Section 7(A) of the Hindu Marriage Act. IN respect of the factum of the marriage and the subsequent desertion by the appellant herein, she herself got examined as P.W.I by marking Exs. P-1 to P-26 in respect of her claim. Apart from her evidence, she also examined one Sowdamuthu as P.W. 2 and one Muth upandian as P.W. 3 to speak about ?Suya Mariyadhai Marriage? which was performed on 26.9.85 at her friend's house, namely Santhi. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant would contend that even though it is stated that the marriage was performed at the residence of her friend Santhi, she was not examined. Likewise, the other two witnesses P.Ws. 2 and 3 were only chance witnesses and it is not safe to rely upon their evidence. He also very much relied on two letters dated 15.3.91 written by her to her f ather-in-law. He also very much relied on a private complaint made before the Judicial Magistrate, Nilakottai. Both the documents were marked through wife during her cross- examination. After perusal of those documents, I am unable to accept the argument of the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant. IN the letter dated 15.3.1991 though she had prayed for performance of marriage with the appellant herein at any early date, even in that letter, she described the appellant as her husband and described herself as his Daughter-in-law. The following statement made in the letter dated 15.3.1991 is relevant:? (Emphasis suupplied) Tamil