NAROTAM RAM Vs. PARWATI DEVI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and decree rendered by the learned District Judge, Mandi, in Civil Appeal No. 40 of 2005 of 14.12.2005, whereby the judgment and decree rendered by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mandi of 1.3.2005 has been affirmed.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the marriage inter -se the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 was solemnized in the year 1970 -1971. At the time of their marriage, both were minors. Both lived together for about 10 -15 days. Thereafter, defendant No. 1 had left for her parental home and stayed there up till 1980. During this period, neither the plaintiff visited the defendant No. 1 nor the defendant No. 1 joined the company of plaintiff. However, prior to 1981 the defendant No. 1 came to the house of the plaintiff and stayed there for 10 -15 days and again left for her parental house and never came back. The defendant No. 1 never joined the company of the plaintiff nor the plaintiff had any access to the defendant No. 1 during the period of 10 -15 days. The defendant No. 1 while staying at her parental house developed illicit relations with Bhagat Ram S/o. Guju and out of such relations, two sons namely Yog Raj and Som Dutt were born from the womb of the defendant No. 1. With the connivance of the President Gram Panchayat, Sidhyani, both Yog Raj and Som Dutt were recorded in the Panchayat Record to be sons of the plaintiff. The entry made in the birth register is illegal and wrong. Hence, the suit for declaration has been filed by the appellant/plaintiff.

(3.) THE defendant No. 1 contested the suit and filed written -statement. Defendant No. 1 in her written -statement has taken preliminary objections inter alia maintainability, cause of action and non -joinder of parties etc. On merits, the defendant No. 1 admitted the marriage of the parties having taken place in the year 1970 -71. It has also been denied that prior to 1981 she came to the house of the plaintiff and stayed there for 10 -15 days and left for her parental home. It has also been denied by the defendant No. 1 that she never joined the society of the plaintiff nor had any sexual intercourse with the plaintiff. The defendant avers that under the influence of liquor the plaintiff used to maltreat her. The replying defendant was asked by the plaintiff to give divorce but she did not agree. On this she was kicked out of the matrimonial home and thereafter she left for her parental home. The appellant/plaintiff filed a divorce petition, which was dismissed on 17.6.1980. The appellant and defendant No. 1 thereafter entered into a compromise and defendant No. 1 visited the house of the plaintiff and stayed there up till June, 1984. Thereafter, she was again ousted by the plaintiff after giving her beatings. Then defendant No. 1 again left for her parental home. The defendant No. 1 was again taken by the plaintiff to his house in the year 1985 but she was again ousted by him. The defendant No. 1 denied the other averments made in the plaint.