KASTOORI DEVI Vs. CHIRANJI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act by Sbrimati Kasturi Devi against the order of the Judge Small Cause Court. Rampur, dismissing her suit against her husband Chiranji Lal for recovery of arrears of maintenance. She alleged in her suit that she was the lawfully wedded wife of Chiranji Lal having been married to him more than 20 years ago. The marriage was intercaste the husband being a Brahman and the wife a Thakur. At the time of this marriage Kasturi Devi was a widow. They lived and cohabited for 20 years but in 1954 the defendant Chiranji Lal took another wife and then turned the plaintiff out of his house. He even refused to maintain her (khana kapra dena bhi band kar diya) and she was compelled to make an application for maintenance against him under the Cr. P. C. On 29-4-1954, there was a gathering of the village Panchayat resulting in a settlement and a written agreement under which the husband Chiranjilal agreed to pay a maintenance allowance of Rs. 30/- per month to her. But he did not honour the agreement and did not pay her a single pie. Whenever she made a demand he gave an evasive answer and ultimately refused point-blank to pay her anything. She was thus forced to file a suit to enforce the agreement and claim arrears of maintenance due to her. The defendant Chiranjilal contested the suit and denied that the plaintiff was his wife or that he had ever married her. His case was that she was engaged by him as a maid servant but subsequently turned her out when he discovered that she was stealing his things. He admitted that the plaintiff had made an application for maintenance against him in the criminal court but alleged that the application was baseless and had been made at the instigation of a man called Nathhoo Singh, Chiranji Lal admitted having signed the agreement, but explained that he had done it under coercion. He alleged that the Sub-Inspector in charge of Police Station Tanda tried to persuade him to provide accommodation and maintenance for Kasturi Devi. On his refusal, he was taken to the police station on the night of 28th April 1954 and detained there. He was threatened and told that if he did not agree to provide accommodation and maintenance for the plaintiff he would be implicated in a criminal case. Faced with this threat, he had no option but to sign the document. This in brief was his explanation for having signed the agreement.

(2.) The learned Judge after hearing the evidence of the parties, disbelieved the defendants' allegation that he had signed the agreement for maintenance under coercion, but he dismissed the suit on two grounds. First, he held that a marriage between a Brahman husband and a Thakur wife is invalid being an inter-caste marriage. He took the view that "parties to a Hindu marriage must belong to the same caste, a marriage between persons who do not belong to the same caste, is invalid unless it is sanctioned by custom." Secondly, he held that the marriage ceremony alleged by the plaintiff had not been properly solemnised. To quote his own words "There is no proof that Saptapadi, that is, taking of seven steps by the bride end the bridegroom jointly took place before the pyre ............. Such a marriage cannot be called a valid marriage and the plaintiff cannot be held to be the legally wedded wife of the defendant". Accordingly he dismissed the plaintiffs' suit for maintenance with costs.

(3.) Aggrieved by that decision the plaintiff Kasturn Devi has come to this Court in revision.