PUSUA Vs. RAJBAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Sec. 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed for filing such an appeal. The delay has been explained by saying that the counsel, who was consulted at the district level for the purpose of filing the appeal, laboured under a misapprehension as to the time required for filing such an appeal. An affidavit of the learned counsel has been filed. In view of this affidavit, I condone the delay in filing the appeal.

(2.) The appellant filed the suit for a declaration that there was no marriage between him and the respondent and that in any case the marriage was null and void being in contravention of Sec. 5(i) of the Act. The allegation was that at the time of the alleged marriage, the respondent had already a husband by name Ramsewak and the marriage between the respondent and Ramsewak subsisted when the respondent is alleged to have been married to the appellant in Churi form. As against this, the respondent denied her alleged marriage with Ramsewak and submitted that she was lawfully married to the appellant in Churi form according to the custom prevailing in the community to which the parties belong. The parties went to trial and adduced evidence at their command. The respondent also exhibited the document Ex. D1 which is admittedly signed and executed by the appellant containing an admission that the respondent was his wife and that he had agreed to pay her maintenance at the rate of Rs. 30.00 per month. After evaluating the evidence the Additional District Judge, who tried the suit came to the conclusion that the respondent was never married to Ramsewak, that she was married to the appellant in Churi form, that the Churi form of marriage was recognised by the custom prevalent in the caste to which the parties belong and that the document Ex. D-l was voluntarily executed by the appellant and the admission contained therein could not be successfully withdrawn. On these findings, the suit has been dismissed.

(3.) Shri A. Usmani, learned counsel for the appellant, argued that the appreciation of evidence by the learned Additional District judge was faulty and that on correct appreciation it ought to have been held that the respondent was married to Ramsewak and that her marriage with Ramsewak subsisted on the date when she alleged to have married the appellant. After hearing the arguments and going through the entire evidence on record, I am of opinion that this appeal must be dismissed. Apart from the oral evidence, the respondent has rightly relied upon the written admission voluntarily made by the appellant as contained in Ex. D-1. It appears from Ex. D-1 that the respondent had taken proceedings under Sec. 125, Criminal Procedure Code, for award of maintenance to her. Maintenance was awarded to the respondent by the Magistrate and when the matter was in appeal, the parties arrived at a compromise. The appellant accepted the respondent as his wife and agreed to pay maintenance. In Ex. D-l, he has clearly stated that the respondent was his wife and was entitled to maintenance. This admission was put to the appellant when he appeared in the witness-box as A. W. 3. Instead of withdrawing that admission and mistaken, he admitted it and explained that he made that admission to bring the criminal proceedings to an end. That hardly tantamounts to saying that he even attempted to withdraw the admission so made. In my opinion, that by itself is sufficient to clinch the issue and return a finding in respondent's favour.