S. SELVARAJ Vs. MARTHA VANITHA PETER AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff in O.S. 310 of 1977, District Munsif's court, Tiruchirapalli, is the appellant in this second appeal. That suit was laid by the appellant praying for a declaration that the first respondent is not the legally wedded wife of the appellant or that she did not have the status of the wife of the appellant and that the appellant is not the father of the second respondent and that he is not responsible for the birth of the second respondent and for a permanent injunction restraining the respondents from, either by themselves or through third parties, claiming rights against the appellant and his properties either as wife or as son.

(2.) The appellant and the first respondent are admittedly persons professing Roman Catholic Christian faith. The first respondent is also related to the appellant. According to the case of the appellant, though the first respondent, her mother and sisters were freely moving with him he never suspected them and taking advantage of their so moving freely with the appellant, the mother and sisters of the first respondent hatched a conspiracy to implicate the appellant in a marriage and with that object in view, they also exercised influence over the appellant and compelled and coerced him into entering into an agreement on 5th July, 1975, in and by which, the appellant and the first respondent agreed to live as husband and wife. The appellant claimed that no form of marriage as per the provisions of the Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872 (Act XV of 1872) (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short), or by Special Marriage Act was gone through and the mere agreement entered into between the parties would not bring into existence the relationship of husband and wife between the appellant and the first respondent. The further case of the appellant was that he was not a willing party to the execution of the agreement and when he realised that a fraud had been played upon him in the matter of entering into the agreement dated 5th July, 1975, it was duly cancelled by another document dated 13th Aug., 1975. The appellant and the first respondent, according to the appellant, never lived as husband and wife either before or after 5th July, 1975 and that the first respondent was falsely giving out that she became pregnant through the appellant and a son was also born as a result of the relationship between the appellant and the first respondent with a view to spoil the future of the appellant. According to the case of the appellant, at the instance of the first respondent, departmental proceedings were also taken against him for attempting to marry another girl and he was acquitted in those proceedings. The false implication that the first respondent is the legally wedded wife of the appellant and that the second respondent was born as a result of intimacy between the appellant and the first respondent, according to the appellant, necessitated the institution of the suit praying for the reliefs set out earlier.

(3.) In the written statement filed by the first respondent, she contended that the marriage of the appellant with her was duly celebrated by performing various religious ceremonies, including exchange of rings and garlands on 5th July, 1975 and the marriage was also duly registered in the Office of the Sub Registrar at Pattukottai and that thereafter they lived as husband and wife. The first respondent further contended that after living together with the appellant, she became pregnant and the second respondent was born to the appellant and herself and that there was no compulsion or coercion or exercise of any undue influence or hatching of any conspiracy as pleaded by the appellant. The execution of the agreement on 5th July, 1975 before the Sub Registrar at Pattukottai was claimed by the first respondent to have been voluntary. The cancellation by the deed dated 13th Aug., 1975 of the agreement dated 5th July, 1975 was characterised by the first respondent as of no consequence in law. The appellant, according to the first respondent, was attempting to marry his aunt's daughter for the second time, though he had been already married to the first respondent and this led to the filing of a petition to the higher authorities to hold an enquiry into the matter. The first respondent thus refuted the claim of the appellant to the reliefs prayed for in the suit and prayed for its dismissal.