The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI First Appeal No.51 of 2020 (Against the judgment and decree dated 22.02.2020 passed in Original Suit No.20 of 2017 by Shree Rakesh Kumar Singh, learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Godda) ------ Churka Marandi son of Late Sarkar Marandi, resident of village Mahara, P.O. & P.S. Poraiyahat, District Godda; at present village Gangta Khurd, P.O. and P.S. Godda (T), District Godda. ----- Appellant Versus Sanjhali Kisku daughter of Late Dhanai, resident of village Amarpur, P.O. Godda, P.S. Godda (M), District Godda. ----- Respondent PRESENT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ------- For the Appellant For the Respondent : Mr. Dharmendra Kr. Malityar, Advocate : Mr. Manoj Kumar Sah, Advocate ------- JUDGMENT Per R. Mukhopadhyay, J. 12.11.2024 Heard Mr. Dharmendra Kr. Malityar, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Manoj Kumar Sah, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 22.02.2020 passed by Shree Rakesh Kumar Singh, learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Godda in Original Suit No. 20 of 2017 whereby and whereunder the suit preferred by the appellant for a declaration that his marriage with the respondent be declared null and void, has been dismissed. 3. For the sake of convenience, both the parties are referred to in this judgment as per their status before the
Legal Reasoning
learned trial court. 4. A suit was preferred by the plaintiff/husband (appellant herein) under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 against the defendant / wife (respondent herein) in which it has been stated that the marriage of the plaintiff was 2 solemnized with Paku Baski in January 1968 as per Hindu rites and customs and out of the said wedlock, he has got three sons. It has been stated that Paku Baski pre-deceased him on 01.11.2007. After the death of his first wife, the plaintiff had solemnized another marriage with Sanjhali Soren, daughter of Mishil Soren with whom he has two children. The defendant claiming herself to be the legally wedded wife of the plaintiff, had filed a maintenance case being Maintenance Case No. 126 of 2009 which was disposed of on 06.10.2016 against which a revision application is pending between the parties. The defendant has claimed in the maintenance application that she was subjected to torture and cruelty and was ousted from her matrimonial house. It has been stated that the defendant has an illicit relationship with one Jishu Marandi and she is trying to take advantage of the similarity in a name with that of the wife of the plaintiff in order to grab his landed property. 5. On being noticed the defendant had appeared and filed his written statement in which she has stated that the first wife of the plaintiff was a government teacher like the plaintiff. Before the death of Paku Baski since she was ailing, the plaintiff, with the consent of Paku Baski, had brought her from her native village to take care of Paku Baski. Since Paku Baski was sick, she had permitted the plaintiff to have physical relationship with the defendant on the assurance that after the death of Paku Baski, the plaintiff will solemnize marriage with the defendant as per the customary rites. It has been stated that after the death of Paku Baski, the plaintiff had solemnized marriage with the defendant but after some time, the plaintiff started avoiding the defendant and instead brought a lady deserted by her husband. In the maintenance case, the court had ordered the plaintiff to make payment of Rs. 4000/- per month, but till date the plaintiff has not paid a single farthing. 3 6. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the following issue was framed for adjudication:- “Whether the petitioner / plaintiff Churka Marandi is entitled for dissolution of his marriage with O.P. Sanjhali Kisku null and void under Section 11 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 or not?” 7. The plaintiff has examined two witnesses in support of his case. 8. P.W.1 Churka Marandi is the plaintiff who has stated about the marriage solemnized with Paku Baski in January 1968 as per Hindu rites and customs and Paku Baski has died on 01.11.2007. 3 children were born out of the said wedlock and all have expired. After the death of his first wife he had solemnised marriage with Sanjhali Soren and out of the said wedlock, two children were born. He has come to know about Sanjhali Kisku from the time she had filed a false case of dowry against him. He does not have any relationship with Sanjhali Kisku. He has stated that his younger brother Jishu Marandi had usurped his ancestral landed properties and had also demanded an amount of Rs. 50,000/- from him. Jishu Manandi has an illicit relationship with Sanjhali Kisku and he had set up Sanjhali Kisku against him. The defendant had filed a case for maintenance being Maintenance Case No. 126 of 2009, which was disposed of on 06.10.2016 against which Criminal Revision No.1593 of 2016 is pending. In cross-examination he has deposed that he had not seen since how many years the defendant had stayed at his house. 9. P.W.2 Sanjhali Soren has stated that she is the legally married wife of the plaintiff. The first marriage of the plaintiff had been solemnized 50 years back, who has expired about 10 years back. After the death of his first wife, the plaintiff has solemnized marriage with her and she has two children out of the said marriage. She knows Sanjhali Kisku 4 from the time she had filed a false case against her. In cross-examination she has deposed that the plaintiff is her first husband. She does not know that Sanjhali Kisku is the wife of the plaintiff. 10. On behalf of the defendant, four witnesses have been examined. 11. OPW 1 Sushila Marandi is acquainted with both the sides. The plaintiff is her uncle who was married to Paku Baski who died on account of illness. During the lifetime of Paku Baski, the plaintiff had brought the defendant to look after his ailing wife and after the death of Paku Baski, the plaintiff had solemnized marriage as per customary rites with the defendant. At the time of marriage, she was at her parents place at village Madda. When the defendant could not beget a child, the plaintiff had taken the defendant to Bhagalpur on several occasions and got him as well as the defendant medically examined. The plaintiff had started torturing the defendant in various ways, but due to the efforts of her father, uncle and the villagers, the intention of the plaintiff to oust the defendant from his home failed. An order of maintenance has been passed in favour of the defendant, but the plaintiff does not pay the monthly maintenance amount. In cross-examination, she has deposed that the defendant stays in the house of the plaintiff. 12. OPW 2 Kirani Tudu has reiterated what has been stated by PW 1. In cross-examination, he has deposed that the defendant tills the land which had fallen in the share of the plaintiff and keeps the entire produce with herself. He has denied that Jishu Marandi has an illicit relationship with the defendant. 13. OPW 3 Jishu Marandi is the younger brother of the 5 plaintiff who has stated that the marriage of the plaintiff was solemnized with the defendant about 11-12 years back and he had actively participated in the wedding. The wedding ceremony was held in presence of all the family members of the plaintiff. When the first wife of the plaintiff died, he had solemnized marriage with the defendant. The plaintiff had tried to oust the defendant from his house, but due to the protest made by his family and the villagers, the plaintiff had failed in his endeavour. The plaintiff has constructed a house in Godda town and has kept a female there. The defendant stays in the ancestral home of the plaintiff and somehow sustains herself. In cross-examination, he has deposed that he has personal knowledge about both the parties and the defendant is the wife of the plaintiff. He does not know Sanjhali Soren. He also does not know as to with whom the plaintiff is residing at Gangtu. 14. OPW 4 Sanjhali Kisku is the defendant who has stated that her marriage was colonized 13-14 years back with the plaintiff as per Santhali customs. The plaintiff was a government teacher and his first wife was also teaching in a government school. When the first wife of the plaintiff died after a prolonged illness, the plaintiff had solemnized marriage with her. Since from the date of the marriage she is residing in the house of the plaintiff and also tills the land which fell in the share of the plaintiff. They do not have any children and the plaintiff had taken her to Bhagalpur for treatment. It was diagnosed that due to the medical inadequacy of the plaintiff, she could not bear a child. The plaintiff had started committing torture upon her and when the persons of the locality intervened, the plaintiff left her in his house and started residing elsewhere. After a few days, the plaintiff purchased a land in Gangta Khurd, where he constructed a house and started residing there in. The 6 plaintiff used to oust her from his house whenever she tried to reside with him, as a result of which she has permanently started residing in the house which fell in the share of the plaintiff. She was compelled to file a case for maintenance as it was difficult for her to sustain herself. The court had ordered Rs. 4000/- per month to be paid by the plaintiff but till date not a single farthing has been extended to her by the plaintiff. The plaintiff was kept in jail for a month, but even then he did not pay the amount of maintenance. In cross-examination, she has deposed that she does not know Sanjhali Soren. 15.
Legal Reasoning
Mr. D.K. Malityar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner / appellant has submitted that the defendant is a stranger who has been set up by her paramour Jishu Marandi in order to grab the property of the plaintiff. Learned Counsel has submitted that PW 2 is the wife of the plaintiff and the defendant seems to have taken advantage of the similarity in the name of PW 2 and the defendant. 16. Mr. Manoj Kumar Sah, learned counsel for the defendant / respondent has submitted that the voters’ list clearly reveals that the plaintiff is the husband of the defendant. In the maintenance case also it has been established that the defendant is the legally married wife of the plaintiff. 17. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also perused the trial court records. 18. Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 based on the parameters which on being fulfilled will lead to declaration of the marriage as null and void. Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 reads as follows:- “11. Void marriages.- Any marriage solemnized after the commencement of this Act shall be null and void and 7 may, on a petition presented by either party thereto against the other party, be so declared by a decree of nullity if it contravenes any one of the conditions specified in clauses (i), (iv) and (v) of Section 5.” 19. We have to ascertain from the evidence, both oral and documentary, as to whether the plaintiff / appellant has made out a case which would fall within the parameters of the requirement of Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant is nowhere connected to him and has been set up to grab the property of the plaintiff. It is an admitted fact that the plaintiff was earlier married to Paku Baski, who was a teacher in a government school as like the petitioner and on her death after a prolonged illness, the plaintiff had solemnized marriage with Sanjhali Soren. The defendant who has a familiar sounding name, had filed a case for maintenance and the court had directed the plaintiff to pay maintenance @ Rs. 4000/- per month. As per the learned counsel for the defendant, the order of maintenance has been affirmed by the revisional court. The plaintiff appears to have filed the suit in order to circumvent the order of maintenance by totally denying the presence of the defendant at any time in his life, though the same has been contradicted by the voters’ list showing the name of the plaintiff as the husband of the defendant and the address shown is also that of the plaintiff. The evidence of OPW 3 further demolishes the case of the plaintiff on account of the fact that OPW 3 is the full brother of the plaintiff and who has claimed to have attended the marriage ceremony of the plaintiff and the defendant. The learned trial court has therefore rightly come to a conclusion that the plaintiff has been unable to prove his case thereby leading to dismissal of the suit. 20. We, in view of the aforesaid discussions, affirm the judgment and decree dated 22.02.2020 passed by Shree 8 Rakesh Kumar Singh, learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Godda in Original Suit No. 20/2017. 21. This appeal is accordingly, dismissed. Pending interlocutory application, if any, stands closed. (Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.) (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Shamim/-