IN THE FAMILY COURT- CUM-IV ADDL.DISTRICT & SESSIONS
JUDGE’S COURT AT VIJAYAWADA
Present: Sri M.Seetha Rama Raju, B.Com.,B.L.,
Judge, Family Court-cum-IV Addl. District and
Sessions Judge, Vijayawada.
Thursday, this the 29th day of March, 2012.
OP.No.348/2008
Between:-
Gonnabattula Vani. …Petitioner.
And
Gonnabattula D.N.E.S.V.Prasada Rao. …Respondent.
This maintenance case is coming on this day before me for hearing in the presence of Sri N.Udaya Kumar, Advocate for petitioner and of Sri Pilla Ravi, Advocate for respondent and upon perusing the petition, oral and documentary evidence on record, this Court made the following:
ORDER
This petition is filed U/s.11 of Hindu Marriage Act to declare the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent dt:06.08.1998 as null and void.
2.The petition averments in brief are:
The marriage of the petitioner and respondent was performed on 06.08.1998 at Sri Bramaramba Mallikharjunaswamy Devasthanam,
Peda Kakani, Guntur Dt as per Hindu rites and customs and their marriage was love marriage. After marriage they resided at Old Town,
Vijayawada. After few weeks the petitioner came to know that the respondent has already married another woman and has children. In that connection the disputes arose between the petitioner and respondent. Later the respondent and his 1st wife approached the 2 petitioner and the 1st wife informed that she has no objection to continue the wedlock. The respondent also promised not to give any trouble in future. The petitioner accepted and continued the wedlock and blessed with a son and daughter. Three years after marriage the respondent addicted to all sorts of vices like drinking, gambling and womanizing and started harassing the petitioner to bring money.
Whenever the petitioner is not ready to give her salary the respondent used to scold and beat her indiscriminately. The petitioner totally vexed with the conduct of the respondent and filed the application and prays to declare the marriage as null and void.
3.The respondent filed counter denying the relation and pleaded that the petitioner introduced herself as LIC agent and requested to take insurance policy and also requested to introduce the other business people for insurance. The petitioner herself proposed him to marry her. The respondent informed her that he is married person and having wife and children. Even then the petitioner insisted him to marry her. At last the respondent surrendered to the petitioner’s love and affection and lived with her under one roof, though they have not married and blessed with two children viz., Potluri Veerabrahmeswara
Swamy and Radhika. The marriage was not performed on 06.08.1998 as alleged by the petitioner. Subsequent to marriage the petitioner got job as conductor in APSRTC. The petitioner insisted the respondent to transfer the property into her name and tortured the respondent physically and mentally. Since the respondent did not accept, the petitioner developed enmity and threatened him that she will lodge a report before police. The petitioner is adamant, arrogant and belligerent woman and used to abuse the respondent in filthy language and insult him. The respondent never ill treated and tortured the 3 petitioner as alleged. There is no marital tie between the petitioner and respondent. The petition is not maintainable.
4.During enquiry on behalf of petitioner PW.1 was examined. Ex.A1 and A2 were marked. On behalf of respondent RWs.1 to 4 examined and Ex.B1 to B4 were marked.
5.Heard the Arguments.
6.The point for determination is:
Whether the petitioner is entitled for declaration that the marriage dt:06.08.1998 is null and void.
7.It is the version of the petitioner that her marriage with the respondent is love marriage and the same was performed on 06.08.1998 at Sri Bramaramba Mallikarjuna Swamy Devasthanam,
Peda Kakani, Guntur District, as per Hindu rites and customs and subsequently she came to know that the respondent has already married another woman and has children and thus by not disclosing the earlier marriage, the respondent has cheated her and on the other hand it is the contention of the respondent that he acquainted with the petitioner when the petitioner approached him as LIC agent and later the petitioner herself proposed the marriage and the respondent has informed that he is having wife and children and despite it the petitioner insisted the respondent to marry her. The respondent has accepted the proposal and lived with the petitioner under one roof but there was no marriage on 06.08.1998 as alleged.
8.In view of the rival contentions the burden is on the petitioner to prove that the marriage was performed on 06.08.1998. Admittedly the petitioner and respondent lived under one roof as wife and husband.
The respondent as RW.1 also admitted that as father of children, he performed Odugu Function at Brahmamgari Mattam along with petitioner. He also admitted that in Ex.B1 he was shown as the 4 husband of petitioner. He also admitted that in the Chowltry they also halted as wife and husband. He also admitted that in the hospital he signed as the husband of the petitioner. RW.2-Chintada Srilakshmi,
RW.3-R.Suseela also admitted that the petitioner is the 2nd wife of the respondent. Ex.A1 is the wedding invitation, as per the contents of
Ex.A1 the marriage was scheduled to be performed on 06.08.1998 at night 01.02 hours at Sri Bramaramba Mallikharjuna Swamy
Devasthanam, Peda Kakni. The respondent made effort and marked
Ex.B4 the receipt with endorsement of temple. Perusal of Ex.B4 show that the receipt was issued by Mallikharjuna Swamy Devasthanam with the endorsement that no marriage was performed on 06.08.1998 between the petitioner and respondent. It is to be noted that the marriage was performed during night at 01.02 hours. Admittedly by
RW.1 the temple will be closed by 10.00 p.m. In view of the time of marriage and the temple is being closed, there may not have any scope for paying any amount required for performing the marriage.
Ex.B4 receipt and endorsement is only negative in nature. In view of
Ex.A1-Wedding Card and the admitted evidence as to leading life under one roof as wife and husband a marriage on 06.08.1998 can be inferred. Admittedly the respondent has wife and children. In view of
Sec.5 Hindu Marriage Act certain conditions are laid down for solemnization of marriage. As per 1st condition neither party has spouse living at the time. As per Sec.11 any marriage solemnized shall be null and void and may petition presented either party there to against the other party be so declared by a decree of nullity if it contravenes any of the contentions specified in Clause 1, Clause 4 and 5 of Sec.5. Therefore, there is contravention of the conditions specified in Clause 1 of Sec.5. In the above facts and circumstances, the marriage can be declared as null and void as prayed.
5
9.The learned counsel for the respondent relied on the following
Decisions:
1. Smt Saritabai Vs. Smt Chandrabai and others AIR-2011, Madhya Pradesh 222.
2. Smt Pilla Appala Narasamma Vs. Record Officer for IOC record, Madras Regiment, Willington and others.
3. Smt Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav Vs. Anantrao Shivaram Adhav and another AIR-1988 Supreme Court, 644.
4. Sri Lagadapati Rajagopal Vs. Sunkara Krishna Murthy and others 2010 (6), ALT-407.
5. Sri Bhauroa Shankar Lokhande and another Vs. The state of Maharashtra and another AIR-1965 Supreme Court 1564.
6. Sri Mohammad Ikram Hussain Vs. The State of U.P and others 1964, Supreme Court 1625.
7. Smt Nallagondla Kanthamma Vs. Smt Nallgondla Rajyam and others 2004 (1) ALT-450.
10.The sum and substance of above all decision is that the 2nd marriage with a previous married wife living is null and void in view of
Sec.5 r/w.11 Hindu Marriage Act. Therefore, the above decisions are not helpful to the respondent and on the other hand they support the version of petitioner. The learned counsel also relied on the decision of
Supreme Court in Surjit Kaur Vs. Garja Singh and others AIR-1994,
Supreme Court 135. The facts of the case show that the customary marriage was not pleaded and the nature of ceremony performed were not brought out and in those circumstances, their lordship held that living together as husband and wife by itself not confer status of husband and wife. Their lordships also observed that in view of Sec.5 (1) r/w. Sec.11 of Acts, 1955 with the 2nd wife cannot get the legal status of the wife of deceased Penchulaiah. The above case cannot to be applied to the facts of this case.
6
11.In view of the above facts and circumstances, the petitioner is entitled for declaration that the marriage dt:06.08.1998 with the respondent is null and void. Accordingly the point is answered.
12.In the result, the petition is allowed. The marriage of the petitioner with respondent dt:06.08.1998 is hereby declared as null and void.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 29th day of March, 2012.
JUDGE, FAMILY COURT,
VIJAYAWADA.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR PETITIONER: FOR RESPONDENT:
P.W.1: Smt G.Vani. RW.1: GDNESV Prasada Rao. RW.2: Chintada Srilakshmi. RW.3: R.Suseela RW.4: G.Veera Nagachari.
DOCUMENTS MARKED
For Petitioner:
Ex.A.1: Wedding Card Ex.A.2: Photo.
For Respondent:
Ex.B1: Buss Pass. Ex.B2: Receipts (two in number). Ex.B3: Photos (five in number). Ex.B4: Mallikharjuna Swamy Devasthanam Receipt along with endorsement.
Judge, F.C-cum-IV ADJ,VJA.