Kerala High Court
Rajani vs Rajeswari on 2 July, 2025
Author: Sathish Ninan
Bench: Sathish Ninan
Mat.Appeal No.575 of 2019
1
2025:KER:47792
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. KRISHNA KUMAR
WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF JULY 2025 / 11TH ASHADHA, 1947
MAT.APPEAL NO. 575 OF 2019
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 28.11.2018 IN OP NO.886 OF 2016
OF FAMILY COURT, CHAVARA
APPELLANTS/PETITIONER & ONE OF THE LEGAL HEIR OF ORIGINAL
RESPONDENT:
1 RAJANI
AGED 36 YEARS
D/O.VIJAYAN, 'KAIRALI', NEW NAGAR-115, VADAKKEVILA
VILLAGE, KOLLAM TALUK, KOLLAM.
2 DHANUSH,
AGED 11 YEARS (MINOR), S/O.LATE MANOHARAN,
KAIRALI, NEW NAGAR-115, VADAKKEVILA VILLAGE,
KOLLAM TALUK, KOLLAM, REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER AND
LEGAL GUARDIAN RAJANI.
BY ADV SHRI.V.PREMCHAND
RESPONDENT/ONE OF THE LEGAL HEIR OF ORIGINAL RESPONDENT:
RAJESWARI
AGED 44 YEARS
D/O.OMANA, K.S.VILLA, PANIYIL, CHATHANNOOR P.O.,
KOLLAM-691572.
BY ADV SRI.SAJU J PANICKER
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON
25.06.2025, THE COURT ON 02.06.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Mat.Appeal No.575 of 2019
2
2025:KER:47792
SATHISH NINAN & P. KRISHNA KUMAR, JJ.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Mat.Appeal No.575 of 2019
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 2nd day of June, 2025
JUDGMENT
P.Krishna Kumar, J.
The first appellant was the wife of late Manoharan.
Their marriage was solemnised on 5 th September 2003. On 27 th
November 2014, by a decree of divorce, in a proceeding
jointly instituted by the parties, the marital tie was
dissolved. Subsequently, on 25th January 2015, Manoharan
passed away while serving in the Indian Army. Following his
demise, the first appellant filed an original petition
before the Family Court, Kollam, against Manoharan's mother
(hereinafter mentioned as 'the respondent'), asserting that
she had remarried Manoharan on 20 th December 2014 by
following the customs and rituals of a customary marriage.
2025:KER:47792
She therefore sought a declaration that the said marriage
was valid and legal. By the judgment impugned in this
appeal, the learned Family Judge dismissed the petition,
finding that the appellant had failed to establish the
alleged remarriage.
2. According to the first appellant, Manoharan had
agreed to remarry her, taking into consideration the welfare
of their child (the second appellant). She claimed that a
customary marriage was performed on 20 th December 2014 at the
Valiya Koonambaikulam Temple in the presence of office
bearers of the SNDP Sakha Yogam, a few invitees, and her
relatives. Due to apprehensions of objections from his
parents and other relatives, Manoharan allegedly chose to
conduct the ceremony without their presence. After the
ceremony, the couple is said to have cohabited until 23 rd
December 2014, after which Manoharan returned to resume his
duties in the Army.
2025:KER:47792
3. The respondent vehemently denied all such claims,
contending that the entire narrative was concocted and the
documents produced were forged with the intent of making a
false claim to Manoharan's service benefits. The respondent
had also instituted a civil suit claiming entitlement to the
deceased's service benefits. The suit was decreed in her
favour, with the observation that the decree would be
subject to the outcome of the original petition filed by the
first appellant.
4. After the impugned judgment, the respondent died.
The appeal was preferred by showing the sister of Manoharan
as the respondent. We have heard the learned counsel
appearing for the appellants and the respondent.
5. The sole point for consideration is whether the
first appellant is entitled to a declaration that she was
remarried to Manoharan on 20.12.2014. In support of her
claim, she relies on the oral testimonies of PW1 to PW5 and
documentary evidence marked as Exts.A1 to A6.
2025:KER:47792
6. Let us first examine the depositions of PW3 and
PW4, who are stated to be independent witnesses. PW3 is the
Secretary of the Valiya Koonambaikulam Temple. He is not a
witness to the marriage. However, he deposed that two types
of marriage ceremonies could be conducted at the temple: one
being a conventional marriage with all customary rituals,
and the other being a simplified ceremony, wherein the groom
merely adorns the bride with a 'Thali'. In the case of a
full-fledged ceremony, the temple authorities issue a
receipt for Rs.200/-, whereas in the other case, a receipt
for Rs.10/- is issued on conducting 'Thali Pooja'. In cross-
examination, he admitted that records of all marriages
conducted at the temple are properly maintained, including a
marriage register and a carbon copy of the receipt,
irrespective of the nature of the ceremony.
7. In conjunction with PW3's testimony, the appellant
places reliance on Ext.A2, a receipt issued from the Valiya
Koonambaikulam Temple dated 20.12.2014. However, a perusal
of Ext.A2 reveals that it pertains only to an 'Archana' and
2025:KER:47792
makes no reference to a 'Thali Pooja' or marriage ceremony.
Therefore, the evidentiary value of Ext.A2, as contended by
the appellant, is significantly diminished. The Family
Court, upon a detailed examination of Ext.A2, concluded that
it cannot be relied upon to establish the remarriage,
especially when the best evidence in the form of the temple
register is not produced. We find ourselves in agreement
with the said conclusion.
8. PW4, the former Deputy Mayor of the Kollam
Corporation, deposed that he witnessed the alleged
remarriage ceremony at the Valiya Koonambaikulam Temple.
Ext.A4, a letter dated 25.03.2015 issued by him stating that
he witnessed the marriage, was marked in evidence through
him. In cross-examination, he claimed that Ext.A4 was issued
as part of his official duty, although it was not based on
any register or official records maintained at his office.
He further stated that the contents of Ext.A4 were derived
from the information furnished by the first appellant.
Notably, he also claimed that the said information was
2025:KER:47792
conveyed to him at the time when he was invited to attend
the marriage ceremony.
9. We find it difficult to comprehend how the Deputy
Mayor could consider it part of his official duties to issue
a certificate of such nature, particularly in the absence of
any supporting records or documents. What is more perplexing
is his assertion that the certificate was prepared several
months after the marriage, based on information purportedly
given to him before the ceremony. Ext.A4 not only mentions
that the marriage took place on 20.12.2014, but also sets
out the reasons for the parties' reunion. Had the
certificate been issued on the date of the marriage or
immediately thereafter, some credibility could have been
attached to his version. However, the fact that the
certificate was issued four months later, based solely on
the recollection of events from memory, significantly
undermines its reliability. The Family Court, in our view,
rightly rejected the testimony of PW4.
2025:KER:47792
10. Turning to the evidence of PW5, he is the co-
brother of the first appellant's father. He claimed to have
witnessed the marriage ceremony. However, as rightly pointed
out by the learned counsel for the respondent, there are
several material contradictions between the depositions of
PW5 and PW2, particularly regarding the location within the
temple compound where the marriage allegedly took place. The
inconsistency casts serious doubt on his credibility. As
observed by the trial court, the close familial relationship
of PW5 to the first appellant further diminishes the
probative value of his testimony. To put it plainly, we find
no credibility in his version either.
11. PW1 is the first appellant and PW2 is her father.
The trial court declined to accept their version as proof of
the alleged remarriage, holding that their interested
testimonies were insufficient to establish the factum of
marriage, particularly in light of the appellant's failure
to produce any independent witnesses. It was alleged that
the marriage ceremony was conducted in the presence of the
2025:KER:47792
Secretary of the SNDP Sakha Yogam, who is said to have
issued Ext.A3, a marriage certificate. However, the
appellants chose not to examine the said Secretary as a
witness. Thus, we are in complete agreement with the
findings of the trial court. The interested testimonies of
PW1 and PW2, in the absence of more reliable and independent
corroboration, cannot be accepted to conclude that the
appellant remarried Manoharan on the alleged date. The
absence of the best evidence in this case renders the
appellant's claim doubtful.
12. We also find that Ext.A3 cannot be relied upon for
multiple reasons. Most notably, the person who purportedly
issued the certificate was not examined before the court,
even though the very fact of marriage was vehemently denied
by the respondent. Significantly, Ext.A3 is merely a letter
allegedly issued by the Secretary of the SNDP Sakha,
Mulluvila, and not an extract from any official marriage
register maintained by the S.N.D.P. Sakha. Its contents
suggest that it was not prepared based on any records
2025:KER:47792
maintained at the Sakha Yogam, but rather on what appears to
be the personal knowledge of its author. If the first
appellant intended to rely on the contents of Ext.A3, she
ought to have examined its author, thereby providing the
respondent an opportunity to cross-examine him. In the
absence of such examination, Ext.A3 holds no evidentiary
value and cannot be relied upon to support the appellant's
claim.
13. In addition to the above findings, the learned
Family Judge undertook a detailed analysis of various
surrounding circumstances that run counter to the claim that
the first appellant had remarried the late Manoharan. The
court observed that, upon Manoharan's death, his mortal
remains were handed over to his mother, and the first
appellant did not even attend the funeral rites--an omission
that creates serious doubt on her claim of a subsisting
marital relationship at the time of his demise. The court
further noted that the alleged remarriage lacked several
essential features of a traditional Hindu marriage. There
2025:KER:47792
was no exchange of garlands or pudava, nor were any
photographs taken at the time of the ceremony. In our
opinion, these aspects, coupled with the absence of credible
evidence, render the appellant's case highly improbable--a
narrative that the late Manoharan remarried her within a
couple of weeks following the decree of divorce, and then he
passed away while in service, within a month thereafter. In
the absence of cogent and reliable evidence, such a claim
cannot be sustained.
14. In view of the above discussion, we find no reason
to interfere with the impugned judgment.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, affirming the
impugned judgment. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
SATHISH NINAN
JUDGE
Sd/-
P. KRISHNA KUMAR
sv JUDGE
