Case Note & Summary
The appeal before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench arose from the dismissal by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Nagpur of two petitions filed by the appellant: one seeking restitution of conjugal rights and the other seeking maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The appellant claimed she married the respondent on 16 August 2003 at Dikshabhoomi, Nagpur, according to customs, and that they lived together as husband and wife. She alleged that the respondent concealed his first marriage with Chandrakala, and when she learned of it, she insisted he divorce his first wife; a divorce decree by mutual consent was obtained, though the decree date was 13 January 2009. She further alleged that in October 2008 the respondent demanded Rs.50,000 and left her when she refused, after which she was beaten when she found him at a relative's house. The respondent denied any marriage with the appellant, claimed she was not his legally wedded wife, and asserted that the case was fabricated to grab his property. The Family Court dismissed both petitions after finding that the appellant failed to prove the factum of a valid marriage and that, in any event, the alleged marriage was null and void because the respondent's first marriage with Chandrakala was subsisting on the date of the alleged marriage. The respondent had filed an affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief but did not appear for cross-examination. The appellant examined herself and four witnesses. In the High Court, the appellant's counsel argued that the Family Court failed to properly appreciate the evidence, that the evidence sufficiently proved marriage, and that long cohabitation should have raised a presumption of marriage, thereby entitling her to maintenance. The High Court re-appreciated the oral and documentary evidence. It noted that the appellant admitted in cross-examination that she knew about the respondent's first marriage 8 to 10 years earlier, which undermined her claim of concealment. The court observed that the appellant did not know the name of the Bhante who performed the alleged marriage, no marriage certificate was issued, and although she claimed that a marriage register was signed at Buddha Vihar, Dikshabhoomi, she did not produce it. The court found contradictions among the witnesses, such as the number of persons attending the marriage, and concluded that the evidence was not credible. The court also observed that the wedding card relied upon was secondary evidence exhibited without recording reasons, and the appellant admitted no wedding cards were printed on her side. The gift deed of immovable property was exhibited even though registration was compulsory and no stamp duty was paid. The court stated that an adverse inference could be drawn against the appellant for not producing the marriage register or certificate. Ultimately, the High Court found no reason to interfere with the Family Court's findings and dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant failed to prove that she was the legally wedded wife of the respondent and that the subsisting first marriage rendered the alleged marriage null and void. The court's analysis focused on the insufficiency and inconsistency of the evidence, the legal consequence of the subsisting first marriage, and the adverse inferences arising from the failure to produce the best evidence of the alleged marriage.
Headnote
A) Family Law - Restitution of Conjugal Rights and Maintenance - Proof of Valid Marriage - Family Courts Act, 1984, Section 19; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 125 - The appellant sought restitution and maintenance based on an alleged marriage dated 16 August 2003; the Family Court dismissed the petitions for failure to prove legal wedlock. The High Court reappreciated oral and documentary evidence and found no reason to interfere with the finding that the appellant failed to prove she was legally wedded wife; contradictions in witness testimony and lack of reliable documentary proof undermined the claim. Held that the appellant was not entitled to relief without establishing a valid marriage (Paras 9-13). B) Family Law - Nullity of Marriage - Subsisting First Marriage - Family Courts Act, 1984, Section 19; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 125 - The appellant admitted that on the date of her alleged marriage, the respondent's first marriage with Chandrakala was subsisting, though she claimed concealment. The court held that even if the appellant had been kept in the dark, once the fact of the subsisting first marriage was proved, the contention that she was the legally wedded wife could not be accepted, rendering the alleged marriage null and void. Held that the subsistence of the first marriage vitiated the appellant's claim to the status of legally wedded wife (Para 9). C) Evidence - Presumption of Marriage from Cohabitation - Contradictory Evidence - Family Courts Act, 1984, Section 19 - The appellant argued that long cohabitation as husband and wife should raise a presumption of marriage. The court found that the testimony of the appellant and the two alleged eyewitnesses was not believable; the appellant did not know the name of the Bhante who performed the marriage, no marriage certificate was issued, and she admitted signing a register but produced no copy. Held that the evidence was insufficient to raise a presumption of marriage (Paras 10-11). D) Evidence - Adverse Inference for Non-Production of Documents - Marriage Register and Certificate - Family Courts Act, 1984, Section 19 - The appellant admitted that she and the respondent signed a marriage register at Buddha Vihar, Dikshabhoomi, but she did not produce the register or obtain a marriage certificate, with no plausible explanation. The court drew an adverse inference against the appellant for failing to produce the best evidence of the alleged marriage. Held that non-production of the marriage register and certificate weakened the appellant's case (Para 12). E) Evidence - Secondary Evidence and Unregistered Gift Deed - Wedding Card and Gift Deed - Family Courts Act, 1984, Section 19 - The appellant relied on a wedding card and a gift deed executed by the respondent in her favour. The Family Court exhibited the wedding card without recording reasons as secondary evidence, and the appellant admitted no wedding cards were printed on her side. The gift deed of immovable property was exhibited though registration was compulsory, and the court did not impound it for insufficient stamping. Held that these documents did not support the appellant's claim of marriage (Para 13).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant proved that she was the legally wedded wife of the respondent; whether the alleged marriage was null and void due to the subsisting first marriage of the respondent with Chandrakala; whether the appellant was entitled to a decree of restitution of conjugal rights and maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Final Decision
The Bombay High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Family Court's judgment and order dated 16 January 2012, which had dismissed the appellant's petitions for restitution of conjugal rights and maintenance under Section 125 CrPC.
Law Points
- restitution of conjugal rights requires proof of valid marriage
- maintenance under Section 125 CrPC requires proof of legal wedlock
- subsisting first marriage renders second marriage null and void
- adverse inference may be drawn for non-production of best evidence
- oral testimony must be consistent and credible
- long cohabitation does not by itself prove valid marriage
