Vinod Shivan vs Laxmi
2016 Latest Caselaw 5709 Del

$~8
*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                         Date of Decision : August 31, 2016

+                           MAT.APP.(F.C.) 91/2016

      VINOD SHIVAN                                            ..... Appellant
               Represented by:          Mr.Milan Kuchhal, Advocate

                                        versus

      LAXMI                                                   ..... Respondent
                   Represented by:      None

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral)

CM No.24984/2016 For the reasons stated in the application delay of 6 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

The application is disposed of.

Mat.App.(F.C.) No.91/2016

1. On July 18, 2016 Trial Court record was summoned when notice issued to the respondent.

2. The reason was obvious.

3. Vide impugned judgment dated April 08, 2016 the learned Judge, Family Court has dismissed a petition filed by the appellant under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 as not maintainable on account of the fact that the appellant was found to be stalking and harassing the respondent for marriage and had failed to prove that he and the respondent got married. The impugned order records that claim of the appellant that he and the

respondent got married on March 26, 2012 at Shiv Mandir Gufa Wala, Preet Vihar, New Delhi was not substantiated and as a matter of fact as on such date the respondent was already married to one Chetan Verma.

4. We have perused the record of the learned Judge, Family Court, New Delhi District, Patiala House.

5. The appellant had examined besides himself one Veer Karan as PW-

2. The cross-examination of the appellant reveals that he admitted knowing the respondent since the year 2009. He admitted that in the year 2011 the respondent had disclosed to him that she was already married and was the mother of a girl child. We find that it is the claim of the appellant that he and the respondent solemnized their marriage on March 26, 2012. He claimed that there were five or six persons present, but during cross- examination could name none. As per him, Pandit Veer Karan was the priest who had performed the rituals. No photograph was filed evincing any marriage rituals being performed. He claimed that his friends had taken photographs on their mobile phones, but this claim was not made good by him.

6. Veer Karan PW-2, completely demolished appellant's case during cross-examination. He admitted that he had not studied the scriptures and was not qualified to perform duties of a Pandit. He disclosed that he was a Sewadar at Anandpur Ashram, Hari Nagar, Delhi and belongs to Khatri caste. He admitted that he could not recite Mantras when a marriage is solemnized as per Hindu customs. He admitted that he did not know the vidhis concerning a marriage. He stated that the appellant and the respondent took seven steps surrounding the Shiv pariwar. He stated that the appellant applied sindoor on the hair parting (the maang) of the respondent and the couple exchanged garlands. He admitted that no sacred fire was lit and Satpadi was not performed.

7. We find that the respondent besides examining herself, examined two more witnesses as RW-2 and RW-3. She proved RW-1/2, a writing by the appellant before the police concerning DD Entry No.17-A. She also proved an FIR registered by her against the appellant for an offence punishable under Section 354 IPC as also a status report filed therein. She claimed knowing the appellant as a patient who used to visit the dispensary where she was working. She has established that as on March 26, 2012 she had a subsisting marriage with Sh.Chetan Verma which was dissolved on July 03, 2012. Maya Devi RW-2, deposed that the appellant used to pester the respondent to marry him and used to threaten that he would commit suicide if she would not marry him. One such incident took place in her house on June 06, 2013 and she was constrained to ring up the Police Control Room. Compromise Ex.PW-1/R-2 was arrived at. Surender RW-3, a witness to the compromise Ex.PW-1/R-2 affirmed the same.

8. We have perused the compromise in question which has been written by the appellant himself. He has apologized for threatening the respondent to marry him. The writing is dated June 06, 2013. This would completely demolish appellant's case that the marriage between him and the respondent was solemnized on March 26, 2012.

9. The appeal is accordingly dismissed in limine. We refrain from imposing any costs because respondent has not been inconvenienced as notice has not been issued to the respondent.

(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE

(PRATIBHA RANI) JUDGE AUGUST 31, 2016/rk