Madras High Court
S.Noorjahan vs J.Thomas Stalin ... 1St on 1 February, 2022
S.A(MD)No.440 of 2011
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 01.02.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN
S.A(MD)No.440 of 2011
S.Noorjahan ... Appellant/Respondent/Plaintiff
Vs.
1.J.Thomas Stalin ... 1st Respondent/Appellant/1st Defendant
2.The Marriage Officer/Marriage Joint Officer,
Thanjavur Registration District,
At Sivagangai Poonga,
Mela Raja Veethi,
Thanjavur. ... 2nd Respondent/2nd Respondent/
2nd Defendant
Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil
Procedure against the judgment and decree, dated 19.11.2009 passed
in A.S.No.16 of 2009, on the file of the Additional Sub-Court,
Thanjavur, reversing the judgment and decree, dated 23.12.2008
passed in O.S.No.195 of 2007 on the file of the District Munsif Court,
Thanjavur.
For Appellant : Mr.K.Guhan
For R - 1 : Mr.R.Rajaraman
1/28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A(MD)No.440 of 2011
JUDGMENT
This second appeal has been directed against the Judgment and
decree, dated 19.11.2009 passed in A.S.No.16 of 2009, by the
Additional Sub-Court, Thanjavur, wherein, the Judgment and decree,
dated 23.12.2008 passed in O.S.No.195 of 2007 by the District Munsif
Court, Thanjavur, are reversed.
2. The appellant herein as plaintiff has instituted a suit in
O.S.No.195 of 2007 on the file of the trial Court for mandatory
injunction directing the second defendant to cancel the marriage
application given on 23.02.2007 and to pass a decree for permanent
injunction proceeding with the solemnization of any marriage of the
plaintiff with the first defendant under the second defendant under the
Special Marriage Act, 1954, wherein, the respondents have been
shown as the defendants.
3. In the plaint, it is averred that the plaintiff and the first
defendant were working as Guest Lecturers and both of them loved
each other and they decided to marry. Both agreed to give a joint
application to solemnize the marriage at Thanjavur in the form and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A(MD)No.440 of 2011
procedure as contemplated under the provisions of the Special
Marriage Act, 1954, as amended. It was also agreed by the first
defendant that within the spell of 90 days, he will convert himself to
Muslim religion. On the assurance and the undertaking given by the
first defendant to the plaintiff, they jointly filed a form for marriage to
be performed as per the procedure under the Special Marriage Act,
1954, as amended. They have submitted the same before the Marriage
Officer for conducting the Special Marriage, Thanjavur Sub-Registration
District, Sivagangai Park at West Main Street on 23.02.2007. On
03.04.2007, the plaintiff and the first respondent went to the Registrar
Office and also had signed the relevant documents. At that time, the
plaintiff approached the first defendant about his conversion to Muslim
Religion. Inspite of repeated oral requests made by the plaintiff, the
first defendant gave evasive reply. On 30.04.2007, the plaintiff was
informed by her family friends at Mannargudi that notice of the
intended marriage of the plaintiff and the first defendant was published
in Marriage Form No.10 was affixed in the notice board at Sub-
Registrar's Office, Mannargudi. In that notice, it is mentioned that the
marriage between the plaintiff and the first respondent is going to be
solemnized under the Special Marriage Act, 1954 within three calender
months. From the date of application, dated 23.02.2007, 90 days
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A(MD)No.440 of 2011
comes to an end on 23.05.2007, which is the last date. The appellant
again phoned the first defendant about his conversion to Muslim
Religion, but the first defendant was hesitating and not ready to
convert himself to Muslim Religion. The plaintiff, on 30.04.2007, had
sent a registered post to the Marriage Registrar, Thanjavur and also
sent a copy of the same to the first defendant informing him to cancel
the registration of marriage application, dated 23.02.2007. The said
notices were acknowledged by the respondents. The defendants
hurriedly made arrangements to somehow or other, by other ways and
means to register the marriage without adopting any procedure as
contemplated under the Special Marriage Act, 1954. Hence, the
plaintiff has filed the above suit for the relief stated supra.
4. In the written statement filed on the side of the first
defendant, the first defendant denied the averments made in the plaint
and contended that after marriage, the plaintiff and the first
respondent are living together and the marriage got consummated and
prayed for dismissal of the suit.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A(MD)No.440 of 2011
5. In the written statement filed on the side of the second
defendant, the second defendant stated that he has acted only as per
the provisions of the Special Marriage Act and he has not violated any
of the provisions of the Act and prayed for dismissal of the suit.
6. Before the trial Court, on the side of the plaintiff, the plaintiff
examined herself as P.W.1 and Exs.A1 to A4 were marked. On the side
of the defendants, one Sivaji was examined as D.W.1 and Exs.B.1 to
B.5 were marked.
7. In the said suit, the first defendant has not appeared before
the trial Court and an set ex-parte decree was passed with regard to
the first defendant and the second respondent alone contested the suit.
8. On the basis of the rival pleadings made on either side, the
trial Court has framed necessary issues and after evaluating both the
oral and documentary evidence, has decreed the suit in favour of the
plaintiff.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A(MD)No.440 of 2011
9. Aggrieved by the Judgment and decree passed by the trial
Court, the first defendant as appellant, had filed an Appeal Suit in
A.S.No.16 of 2009. The first appellate Court, after hearing both sides
and upon reappraising the evidence available on record, has allowed
the appeal and set aside the Judgment and decree passed by the trial
Court.
10. Challenging the judgment and decree passed by the first
Appellate Court, the present second appeal has been preferred at the
instance of the appellant, as plaintiff.
11. At the time of admitting the present second appeal, the
following substantial questions of law have been framed for
consideration:
"1) Whether the judgment and decree of the first
appellate Court are sustainable inasmuch as they are
perverse and contrary to the material on record and
based on misreading of evidence and documents?
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A(MD)No.440 of 2011
2) Whether the judgment and decree of the first
appellate Court are vitiated in not granting the relief
for the appellant especially the appellant as plaintiff
has substantiated he claim on the basis of Ex.A1 to A4
and the very admission of DW.1?
3) Whether the first Appellate Court are right in
dismissing the suit without considering Special
Marriage Act, 1954 clearly stated that marriage officer
to perform any marriage? and
4) Has not the first appellate Court
misinterpreted Ex.B1 to B5 documents?"
12. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/plaintiff
submitted that the first Appellate Court had totally failed to see that
the first respondent/first defendant has not contested the case and set
ex-parte without giving any evidence and the Judgment and Decree of
the first Appellate Court is liable to be set aside and reversible. The
first Appellate Court failed to see that under the Special Marriage Act,
1954, no marriage was performed by the Marriage Registrar as
admitted by D.W.1, the Head Clerk of the Registrar of Office, vide
Exs.B.1 to B.5 and in such case, the first Appellate Court had came to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A(MD)No.440 of 2011
the conclusion that the marriage was performed and prayed for
allowing the Second Appeal.
13. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/first
defendant submitted that the first Appellate Court has rightly allowed
the appeal and prayed for dismissing the Second Appeal.
14. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned
counsel for the first respondent and perused the materials available on
record.
15. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff and the first
defendant were working as Guest Lecturers and they decided to marry.
Both of them have agreed to give a joint application on 23.02.2007 to
solemnize their marriage at Thanjavur in the form and procedure as
contemplated under the provisions of the Special Marriage Act, 1954,
as amended. It was also agreed by the first defendant that within the
spell of 90 days, the notice period, he will convert himself to Muslim
religion. Since the first defendant was hesitating and not ready to
convert himself to Muslim Religion, the plaintiff, on 30.04.2007, had
sent a registered post to the Marriage Registrar, Thanjavur and also
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A(MD)No.440 of 2011
sent a copy of the same to the first defendant informing to cancel the
registration of marriage application, dated 23.02.2007. The said
notices were acknowledged by the respondents. The defendants
hurriedly made arrangements to somehow or other, to register the
marriage without adopting the procedure as contemplated under the
Special Marriage Act, 1954. It is the case of the first respondent/first
defendant that after the marriage, the plaintiff and the first respondent
are living together and the marriage got consummated.
16. On a perusal of the materials available on record, it is seen
that the plaintiff was examined as P.W.1. The application submitted
before the second respondent on 23.02.2007 was marked as Ex.A.1;
On 30.04.2007, the plaintiff sent a registered post to the Marriage
Registrar, Thanjavur, to cancel the registration of the marriage
application, dated 23.02.2007, marked as Ex.A.2; the postal receipt
marked as Ex.A.3 and the notice acknowledged by the first defendant
marked as Ex.A.4. On the side of the defendants, one Guru Sivaji was
examined as D.W.1.
17. Further, it is seen that on 23.02.2007, the plaintiff and the
first defendant had given an application before the Sub-Registrar's
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A(MD)No.440 of 2011
Office under Section 1954(5)-(1) of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 and
as per Section 6(3) of the said Act, there should be a notice to be
issued to the territorial Sub-Registrar Office. The second defendant in
his evidence has stated that he was not aware about the date of
sending the notice dated 23.02.2007 and the date of notice received
from Mannarkudi office was on 02.04.2007. In the said letter, there
was no details regarding when they have received the said application
or when they have published the same was not found. The second
defendant's statement that he has published the same before the
Mannarkudi Sub-Registrar Office was also not proved when the same
has been raised by the plaintiff that they have not properly published
the same before the Mannarkudi Sub-Registrar's Office. Further, the
second defendant in his evidence itself has submitted that on
23.02.2007, when the plaintiff and the first defendant signed the
application there was no Sub-Registrar available and the supervisor
alleged to have conducted the marriage. On 30.04.2007 when the
same has been published, which came to the knowledge of the plaintiff,
had immediately sent a notice to the second defendant which was
marked as Ex.A.2, the postal receipt was marked as Ex.A.3 and the
notice acknowledged by the first defendant was marked as Ex.A.4. On
30.04.2007, the plaintiff has sent an application to the second
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A(MD)No.440 of 2011
defendant not to take any action on the application, dated 23.02.2007.
According to the second defendant's statement, the alleged marriage
which has been taken place on 03.04.2007 itself is not supported by
any valid evidence. Ex.B.4-xerox copy of the application would show
that the plaintiff and the first defendant had given an undertaking
before the Sub-Registrar Office on 03.04.2007 and in that, it has been
stated that as if on 03.04.2007, the second defendant office has
conducted a marriage, but on 30.04.2007, notice has been sent by the
plaintiff, for that, no reply has been sent by the second respondent
office whether there was any valid marriage conducted or not or what
steps they have taken on the notice sent by the plaintiff. The time limit
after publication is 90 days, but when the application itself is filed on
23.02.2007 within a month, without even publication, there cannot be
any marriage being conducted on 03.04.2007. The plaintiff reiterated
that there was no marriage taken place between herself and the first
defendant, but the second defendant has given the marriage
certificate, as if the marriage was held on 03.04.2007. If at all there
was a statement made that the marriage was conducted on
03.04.2007, the second defendant ought to have proved the same.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A(MD)No.440 of 2011
18. Section 16 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954, reads as
follows:-
“16.Procedure for registration.- Upon receipt of
an application signed by both the parties to the
marriage for the registration of their marriage under
this Chapter, the Marriage Officer shall give public
notice thereof in such manner as may be prescribed
and after allowing a period of thirty days for
objection and after hearing any objection received
within the period, shall, if satisfied that all the
conditions mentioned in Section 15 are fulfilled,
enter a certificate of the marriage in the Marriage
Certificate Book in the Form specified in the Fifth
Schedule and such certificate shall be signed by the
parties to the marriage and by three witnesses.
As per Section 16 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954, upon receipt of an
application signed by both the parties, the Marriage Officer shall issue a
public notice thereof in the manner prescribed after allowing a period
of thirty days for objection and after hearing any objection received
within the period, shall, if satisfied that all the conditions mentioned in
Section 15 are fulfilled, enter a certificate of marriage in the Marriage
Certificate Book in the Form specified in the Fifth Schedule and such
certificate shall be signed by the parties to the marriage and by three
witnesses.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A(MD)No.440 of 2011
19. Only after giving notice, the marriage has to be registered.
But, on 30.04.2007 itself, the plaintiff has issued a notice stating that
she is giving an objection. The lower Court has proceeded on the
ground that after 23.02.2007, there should be three months notice
period is not accepted by this Court, but the second defendant has not
proved that he has not received any such objection. When the plaintiff
submitted that the application was submitted only by the plaintiff and
the first defendant and no witnesses has been signed in the same, the
second defendant on his own has filled up the same and sent it to the
Mannarkudi Sub-Registrar Office. The witnesses are the employees of
the said office and no third party has signed in the same. In the said
document Ex.B.4, no signature of the Registrar was found. The
signature of the witnesses as well as the plaintiff and the first
defendant and no date was found under the signature. Further, there
was no such signature of the Sub-Registrar has been found. That being
the case, when there was no signature of the Sub-Registrar was found,
there was no evidence produced by the second defendant that only
before the competent authority, the said marriage has been conducted.
Further, the plaintiff's statement that it was only a created document
and no such marriage has been held and in Ex.B.5-marriage certificate,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A(MD)No.440 of 2011
it has been stated that only on 03.04.2007, the marriage has been
conducted, but in the said document originally '9' has been written and
later on, it has been struck off and '3' has been incorporated on top.
Even in the date of signature also, the same has been struck off and '3'
has been inserted. Hence, in all the documents, there was some
additions made and hence, this Court is of the view that the said
document is not genuine and it has with lot of discrepancies. As no
reply filed by the second defendant, when the plaintiff sent a notice,
the trial Court has come to the conclusion that if there was already a
marriage taken place, he would have definitely sent a reply stating that
the marriage has already been registered, but the second defendant
not stated anything by way of reply and the first defendant also has
not appeared before the trial Court and later on only, in the first
Appellate Court, the first defendant has filed an appeal and tried to
reverse the finding of the trial Court.
20. Sections 5 to 8 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954, read as
follows:-
"5. Notice of intended marriage.-When a marriage is
intended to be solemnized under this Act, the parties to the
marriage shall give notice thereof in writing in the form
specified in the Second Schedule to the Marriage Officer of
the district in which at least one of the parties to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A(MD)No.440 of 2011
marriage has resided for a period of not less than thirty days
immediately preceding the date on which such notice is
given.
6. Marriage Notice Book and publication.-(1) The
Marriage Officer shall keep all notices given under section 5
with the records of his office and shall also forthwith enter a
true copy of every such notice in a book prescribed for that
purpose, to be called the Marriage Notice Book, and such
book shall be open for inspection at all reasonable times,
without fee, by any person desirous of inspecting the same.
(2) The Marriage Officer shall cause every such notice
to be published by affixing a copy thereof to some
conspicuous place in his office.
(3) Where either of the parties to an intended
marriage is not permanently residing within the local limits of
the district of the Marriage Officer to whom the notice has
been given under section 5, the Marriage Officer shall also
cause a copy of such notice to be transmitted to the Marriage
Officer of the district within whose limits such party is
permanently residing, and that Marriage Officer shall
thereupon cause a copy thereof to be affixed to some
conspicuous place in his office.
7. Objection to marriage.-(1) Any person may, before
the expiration of thirty days from the date on which any such
notice has been published under sub-section (2) of section 6,
object to the marriage on the ground that it would
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A(MD)No.440 of 2011
contravene one or more of the conditions specified in
section 4.
(2) After the expiration of thirty days from the date on
which notice of an intended marriage has been published
under sub-section (2) of section 6, the marriage may be
solemnized, unless it has been previously objected to under
sub-section (1).
(3) The nature of the objection shall be recorded in
writing by the Marriage Officer in the Marriage Notice Book,
be read over and explained if necessary, to the person
making the objection and shall be signed by him or on his
behalf.
8. Procedure on receipt of objection.-(1) If an
objection is made under section 7 to an intended marriage,
the Marriage Officer shall not solemnize the marriage until he
has inquired into the matter of the objection and is satisfied
that it ought not to prevent the solemnization of the marriage
or the objection is withdrawn by the person making it; but
the Marriage Officer shall not take more than thirty days from
the date of the objection for the purpose of inquiring into the
matter of the objection and arriving at a decision.
(2) If the Marriage Officer upholds the objection and
refuses to solemnize the marriage, either party to the
intended marriage may, within a period of thirty days from
the date of such refusal, prefer an appeal to the district court
within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the Marriage
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A(MD)No.440 of 2011
Officer has his office, and the decision of the district court on
such appeal shall be final, and the Marriage Officer shall act
in conformity with the decision of the court."
As contemplated under Section 7 of the Act, when any person before
the expiry of thirty days from the date on which any such notice has
been published, object to the marriage on the ground that it would
contravene one or more of the conditions, the objection shall be
recorded in writing by the Marriage Officer in the Marriage Notice Book,
be read over and explained, if necessary, to the person making the
objection and shall be signed by him or on his behalf.
21. Here is the case when the plaintiff has proved her case that
she had sent a notice on 30.04.2007 objecting for the said registration
of marriage, the said authority, inspite of receiving it, has not either
noted it down in the marriage note book or he has taken any steps to
proceed further as per Section 8 of the Act.
22. Such objections should ordinarily be disposed of by the
Marriage Officers within a specified period, the parties being given a
right of appeal also before the competent Court. The Marriage Officer
shall hold an enquiry with respect to such matters. Accordingly, when
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A(MD)No.440 of 2011
the Marriage Officer has not taken any steps for at least giving a reply
or holding an enquiry, the trial Court has granted the said prayer that
the permanent injunction restraining the defendants from proceeding
further in the said application and the application is of the year 2007.
23. The first defendant stated that the plaintiff and the first
defendant jointly filled a form for marriage to be performed as per the
Special Marriage Act, 1954, and submitted an application on
23.02.2007 and only on 03.04.2007, the said marriage was confirmed
by the second defendant, but it is not correct to state that at the time
of confirming the marriage, the plaintiff has approached the first
defendant about his conversion to Muslim region and denied as false.
On 30.04.2007, the plaintiff was informed by her family friends at
Mannarkudi that notice of the inducted marriage on the first defendant
was published in Form No.10 was affixed to be proved by the plaintiff.
He submitted that both were living as husband and wife and she only
left the house for living separately at Thanjavur as the parents had
tortured and ill-treated her and hence, he also allowed her to live there
and this is not the reason for not conducting the marriage as alleged.
She has stated that he did not want to convert to Muslim religion and
all these averments are false and she sending a notice to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A(MD)No.440 of 2011
defendants for cancelling the marriage on 30.04.2007 was denied as
false. Actually after receiving the notice, the first defendant
immediately contacted the plaintiff over phone about the issuing of
notice. But the plaintiff told that only at the threat of her parents,
she issued such notice. Hence, sending of a notice has been proved by
his own written statement regarding the objection made. The first
defendant stated that the marriage has got consummated and prayed
for dismissing the same. On the side of the second defendant, the
Supervisor has filed the written statement. He stated that he has
conducted the marriage as per the Act following all the Rules and
Regulations and he has not violated any of the Rules.
24. The first Appellate Court has proceeded when the first
defendant filed an appeal. The first defendant has not appeared before
the trial Court for letting in any evidence. As he was set ex-parte, he
could not cross-examine the plaintiff or the other persons and to prove
his case. Hence, he wanted to conduct the case again and to live with
the plaintiff.
25. As the second defendant has got no power to conduct the
marriage as the Special Marriage Act gives a power, who has to be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A(MD)No.440 of 2011
appointed as Marriage Officers, the State Government may by
notification in the official Gazette appoint one or more Marriage Officers
for the whole or any part of the State. That being the case, each
marriage has to be registered by the Marriage Officer specially
accorded for the purpose alone, is valid. The second defendant has
also not proved that he had any such authorization being given by the
Sub-Registrar, as this person is not a competent person to hold the
marriage, as he has not produced any such rules which would show
that the Sub-Registrar can authorize the supervisor to conduct any
marriage. Even on the date of deposing as a witness, the second
defendant was only a supervisor and he admitted that he has not
received any such authorization or direction for acting as such and
Ex.B.4 would prove that there was no such signature of Sub-Registrar
is available and also no date has been mentioned in the said document
and only before him, the plaintiff and the first defendant had taken an
undertaking was not proved by any other witnesses. When the second
defendant stated that from 28.11.2008, he has been in-charge of the
Sub-Registrar, but on 23.02.2007 the alleged date of marriage, he has
not been appointed to act on behalf of the Sub-Registrar. Hence, the
second defendant himself had admitted that no such order has been
issued for authorizing him to conduct the marriage. The first Appellate
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A(MD)No.440 of 2011
Court has come to the wrong conclusion that on 03.04.2007, the
plaintiff and the first defendant had gone and signed the said document
before the officer of the Sub-Registrar.
26. The case of the plaintiff is that when the plaintiff approached
the first defendant requesting him to convert to Muslim religion and he
has also agreed to convert as Muslim within a period of one month, but
not converted. It has been stated that at the time when she filed the
suit, she filed an objection petition on 30.04.2007 not to take action on
the application, dated 23.02.2007. The objection petition is known to
the defendant has been proved, but not accepted by the first Appellate
Court and in the plaint averment, the plaintiff has stated that since the
first defendant was not ready to convert himself to Muslim Religion, the
plaintiff on 30.04.2007 had sent a objection through registered post to
the Marriage Registrar, Thanjavur and also had sent a copy of the same
to the first defendant informing to cancel the Registration of Marriage
application, dated 23.02.2007. In that notice, the plaintiff has not
made any suppression of the facts. The notices were acknowledged by
the defendants 1 and 2. Further, the plaintiff submits that when she
came to know that the first defendant with the active assistance of the
second defendant is making arrangement to register the marriage by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A(MD)No.440 of 2011
impersonating the plaintiff filed the suit and prayed for issuance of
permanent injunction restraining the defendants from proceeding with
the joint application be granted, otherwise the plaintiff will be put into
irreparable loss and hardship. The plaintiff also submits that as per the
law, the marriage between the plaintiff and the first defendant was not
solemnized so far.
27. The first Appellate Court has come to the conclusion that as
per Chapter 7 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954, every petition under
Chapter V or Chapter VI shall be presented to the District Court within
the local limits of whose original civil jurisdiction, the marriage was
solemnized or at the time of the presentation of the petition, resides or
the parties to the marriage last resided together. This is for claiming
the marriage to be declared as nullity or for divorce. But, here is the
case, where the plaintiff is asking only for declaration that the
application which has been presented by her not to be acted upon and
she did not ask for the marriage to be declared as null and void and
she should have proceeded under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage
Act. Here is the case, where both the parties are not Hindus and they
are Christians and Muslims. Hence, the first Appellate Court finding
does not found to be proper and acceptable.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A(MD)No.440 of 2011
28. According to the first Appellate Court, the prayer which has
been sought for by the plaintiff has already become infructuous on the
ground that the marriage has already been solemnized. When the first
Appellate Court itself has observed in its Judgment that the second
defendant's evidence which clearly states that he has got no
authorization to conduct the marriage, then the alleged marriage
registered is not valid as per law.
29. The trial Court has correctly rendered the Judgment, but the
first Appellate Court has erroneously allowed the first Appeal. The first
Appellate Court has not analysed the deposition of D.W.1, wherein, it
has been clearly found that the second respondent has no got no
authority to conduct the marriage. As the suit is filed only for
permanent injunction, the District Munsif has taken the same on file,
but the first defendant failed to appear before the trial Court, who was
set ex-parte and then he filed an appeal and without letting in any
evidence, the first Appellate Court has believed his words in the
grounds of appeal and decided the issue against the plaintiff has to be
set aside. Further, the first defendant has not appeared before the trial
Court and the proper relief has been sought for by the plaintiff and
accordingly, this Court is of the view that already the marriage has not
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A(MD)No.440 of 2011
been solemnized when there was no proper evidence produced by the
defendants to prove that there was a valid marriage taken place on
03.04.2007 and the marriage was consummated. The defendants were
not in a position to state that as to when the second defendant has
sent the application details to the Mannarkudi Sub-Registrar Office, as
the plaintiff is residing in Mannarkudi. In Mannarkudi Sub-Registrar
Office, there was no proper details by way of records have been
furnished by the second defendant that when they have received the
application or when they have affixed the publication in the notice
board. As they have not proved it beyond doubt by substantiating
evidence, when it is essential that notice to be given to the permanent
residence of the plaintiff and no evidence has been produced by the
defendants and the plaintiff also filed her objection immediately on
coming to know that the same was affixed on 30.04.2007, there was
no reply given by the second defendant to the plaintiff and it is to be
presumed that the second defendant has not acted as per law and the
application, dated 23.02.2007 has to be set aside and not to be acted
upon. It is also further seen that the first defendant has not any let in
any evidence to show that the marriage has taken place in front of
witnesses. The alleged marriage registered is not a valid one.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A(MD)No.440 of 2011
30. In this regard, it is relevant to rely upon the Judgment of the
Allahabad High Court in Nirmal Dass Bose Vs. Mamta Gulati
reported in AIR (1997) Allahabad 401, wherein it is held as follows:-
"11.It may further be noticed that as provided for
under Section 13 of the Act on a certificate being entered
in the Marriage Certificate Book by the Marriage Officer,
the certificate shall be deemed to be conclusive evidence
of the fact that a marriage under this Act had been
solemnized and that all formalities respecting the
signatures of witnesses have been complied with.
12.A void marriage is no marriage. It is a marriage
which does not exist from its beginning. In other words, no
legal consequences flow from a void marriage. It does not
confer a status or husband and wife on the parties or
status of legitmacy of children of such a marriage. Further,
it does not give rise to any rights and obligations against
each other as well as against the third person. It must be
emphasised that it is not the decree of Court which
renders such a marriage void as the Court merely declares
the marriage to be null and void. In case, the marriage is
void, the Court merely makes a judicial declaration of that
fact. Void marriage cannot either be approbated or
ratified."
From the above, it is seen that a void marriage is no marriage and it is
a marriage which does not exist from its beginning.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A(MD)No.440 of 2011
31. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the trial Court
has gone through the evidence and pleadings of the parties and rightly
decreed the suit and accordingly, the substantial questions of law are
answered in favour of the appellant/plaintiff and as against the first
respondent/first defendant.
32. In fine, the Second Appeal is allowed. No costs. The
Judgment and Decree passed in O.S.No.195 of 2007 by the District
Munsif Court, Thanjavur, is confirmed.
01.02.2022
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
ps
Note :
In view of the present lock
down owing to COVID-19
pandemic, a web copy of the
order may be utilized for
official purposes, but,
ensuring that the copy of the
order that is presented is the
correct copy, shall be the
responsibility of the
advocate / litigant concerned.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A(MD)No.440 of 2011
To
1.The Additional Sub-Court,
Thanjavur.
2.The District Munsif Court,
Thanjavur.
3.The Record Keeper,
V.R. Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A(MD)No.440 of 2011
V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN, J.
ps
Judgment made in
S.A(MD)No.440 of 2011
01.02.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
