KRISHEN LAL Vs. KRISHNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arise out of an application under section 9 of the Hindu Marriages Act brought by the appellant against Mst. Krishna alleging her to be his wife and against the other defendants for an injunction that they should not in any way interfere in the discharge of marital obligations by Mst. Krishna towards the appellant -petitioner. The application was resisted in the trial court, the court of the District Judge, Kathua and the then District Judge, Sardar Amir Singh dismissed the petition of the appellant on 1 -10 -1966 holding that no marriage was proved between the appellant and Mst. Krishna. It may be stated that Mst. Krishna and other defendants had categorically denied Krishnas marriage with the petitioner. The defence of the respondents in that case had resulted in framing the following issues: -

(2.) WHEN the appeal came before us, we heard the learned counsel for the pnies and we were shown un -ambiguous evidence about the existence and proof of the marriage of the appellant with the respondent Krishna, in particular certified copies of applications made by Mst. Krishna against the appellant under Sections 10/13 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

(3.) THESE applications had been admitted by the respondent Krishna in her statement buts she had stated that her counsel Lala Saindass and Lala Tej Ram put in some application, the contents whereof she did not know. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties about the question of marriage, we were of the opinion that the marriage of the appellant with Krishna was proved and in our order dated 23rd April 1963 we clearly held that we do not agree with the finding of the trial court on issue No. 1 but we called for a finding on Issues No 2 and 3 from the trial court. The District Judge who had first dismissed the application of the appellant u/s 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Sardar Amir Singh was succeeded by another District Judge Kanwar Hari Singh. He returned a finding against the appellant on both these issues vide his order dated 9 -7 -68, but he devoted a sufficient portion of his report to a point, which was never referred to him, suggesting that the appeal should fail because Krishen Lal had married after she secured a decree of annulment of her marriage with the appellant. The uncalled for portion of the report was based on the application moved before him on 9 -7 -1968 by the counsel for Mst. Krishna. The learned Judge was influenced by a certain authority of the Madhya Pradesh High Court reported as AIR 1965 MP 164. After the finding of the lower court was received, the parties were given time to file their objections against the finding of the District Judge,