RAKSHA RANI AND OTHERS Vs. MADAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant-wife's prayer under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights has been disallowed by the lower Court for the sole reason that she has failed to prove a legal marriage between her and the respondent. The finding recorded is that she has failed to prove the performance of legal ceremonies specified in Section 7 of the Act inasmuch as no reliable evidence has been led to establish that at the time of the alleged performance of marriage between the parties there was (i) invocation of sacred fire and (ii) Saptapati, i.e., taking of seven steps by the bridegroom and the bride together around the sacred fire. After having been taken through the evidence on record and the pleadings of the parties, I find it difficult to sustain this conclusion of the lower Court.

(2.) The sole case set up by the respondent husband was that when he along with his marriage party had come to village (Jalbera) of the appellant, he learnt that a ruse was going to be played upon him inasmuch as instead of one Archana, who according to the respondent was a sister of the appellant and was betrothed to him (the appellant has not admitted these facts in her statement) the appellant was going to be married to him. He along with the marriage party left the village of the appellant and thus there was no question of any marriage between them.

(3.) From the trend of cross-examination to which the witnesses on behalf of the appellant have been subjected, it stands impliedly conceded by the respondent that there was some sort of ceremony and the marriage party had, as a matter of fact, come to the house of the appellant. In the cross-examination of the appellant she has stated in no uncertain terms that the 'Phere' ceremony was performed at the 'Vedi' - where undisputably the sacred fire is brunt-and the respondent followed by her took the first four steps around it and the next three steps were taken by the appellant ahead of him. Besides this all the other three witnesses, namely Sheo Parshad Prohit, P.W.2, Brahma Nand, P.W.3 and Bhagat Ram Barber, P.W.4 produced in support of appellant's case have stated in categorical terms that the ceremony was performed according to the Hindu religion and rites. In the face of this evidence which not only remains unrebutted and, to my mind, suffers from no infirmity for being relied upon, I do not find as to how the learned lower Court recorded the conclusion that the performance of the ceremony specified in Section 7 of the Act has not been proved by the appellant. The evidence of the respondent with regard to the denial of the performance of these ceremonies deserves no credence for the short reason that as per his pleading he had not even gone to the house of the appellant for the performance of the marriage or any ceremony.