Case: Laxmansingh Chandrasingh vs Kesharbai Laxmansingh
Citation: AIR 1966 MP 166
Date of Judgement: January 30, 1963
Bench: Hon’ble Justice V Newaskar and Hon’ble Justice P Tare
Appellant: Laxmansingh
Respondent: Kesharbai
Facts:
1. The Appellant filed for Restitution of Conjugal Rights on the allegation that the Respondent had been married to him and that she had left her husband’s house without any reasonable cause.
2. The Respondent denied that she was the married wife of the Appellant. The trial Judge held that the petitioner was not entitled to claim Restitution of Conjugal Rights.
3. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant argued that the Additional District Judge had no jurisdiction to try a petition under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Issues involved:
- Whether the marriage between the parties was valid or not?
- Whether the Additional District Judge had jurisdiction to try a petition under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955?
Rationale:
1. Taking reference of Dharam Sheela Bai Ram Dayal v. Ram Dayal Bhatnagar, 1961 M. P. LJ 979, the court held that the Additional District Judge can perform the functions of a principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in case he is so empowered by a general, or special order issued by the District Judge under Section 7 (2) of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Courts Act, 1958.
2. Section 3 of the said Act classified the different Courts as under:-
(i) The Court of the District Judge
(ii) The Court of the Additional District Judge
(iii) The Court of the Civil Judge (Class I)
An Additional District Judge shall discharge any of the functions of a District Judge, including the functions of the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction.
3. The Appellant in his petition alleged that he had married the Respondent in Natra form of marriage. The Respondent’s former husband Amarsingh claimed that Appellant did not perform any of the caste ceremony regarding Natra marriage at any time. Moreover witness has not produced any evidence to show that the caste people were invited for any ceremony regarding Natra marriage.
4. The court further held that a valid marriage can solemnized only when it fulfills the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Therefore, the Respondent is not the married wife of the Appellant and as such (the Appellant) is not entitled to Restitution of Conjugal Rights.
Obiter Dicta:
As held in Deivanai Achi v. R. M. Al. Ct. Chidambaram Cheltiar, (AIR 1954 Mad 657) “A Hindu marriage must be according to Shastras or according to the special custom prevalent amongst any particular community.
Any form of marriage not recognised either by the Hindu Shastras or by the caste custom cannot be considered to be a marriage according to the Hindu Law. The marriage may also be solemnized according to any statutory provision prevalent in any territory. But unless one of these things is established, it cannot be said that there has been a valid marriage.”
Judgement:
The court accordingly dismissed the appeal.
Conclusion:
The Appellant filed a suit for Restitution of Conjugal Rights in the District Court alleging that his wife left his house without any reasonable cause. The Appellant stated that he had married the Respondent in Natra form of marriage.
The court dismissed his suit referring the precedents and held that a valid marriage can solemnized only when it fulfills the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 or any other statutory provisions.
Drafted By: Param Mansinghka
Edited By: Tanvi Mahajan, Publisher, Law Insider
Published On: February 16, 2022 at 22:00 IST