Recently, the Karnataka High Court dismissed four appeals challenging a trial court's order granting interim injunction in a property dispute, where the plaintiff claimed rights as the widow of the deceased owner. The Court was dealing with appeals against an interim order passed in a civil suit concerning declaration, partition, and injunction. Notably, the Court observed that "procedural irregularities under the Foreign Marriage Act, 1969 cannot negate a genuine marital relationship at the interlocutory stage."
The dispute arose when the plaintiff, claiming to be the legally wedded wife of the deceased son of the defendants, filed a suit for declaration, partition, and injunction. She asserted that during the subsistence of her marriage, she and her husband transferred substantial funds, both in Indian and US currencies, which were utilized by the first defendant (her father-in-law) to acquire the suit schedule property. The property, according to her, was purchased in the name of defendant no.1 merely for convenience, as the couple was residing abroad, with a promise that it would later be transferred to them.
Following her husband's death, the plaintiff alleged attempts by the defendants to dispossess her from the property despite her continued possession and contribution.
The appellants denied the marital status of the plaintiff with their deceased son and contended that the suit property was exclusively purchased from the funds of defendant no.1. They claimed that the plaintiff was merely allowed to reside temporarily during the illness of her husband and had no legal or possessory rights over the property.
Challenging the marriage certificate produced by the plaintiff, the appellants argued that the marriage was not certified under the Foreign Marriage Act, 1969, and that mere notarization of documents did not establish a valid marriage. They sought vacation of the injunction order and relied upon the procedural requirements under the Foreign Marriage Act to question the legality of the marriage.
On the other hand, the counsel for the respondent (plaintiff) supported the trial court’s findings and submitted that the dispute only arose after the death of her husband. It was reiterated that the funds transferred by her and her husband were used for the purchase of the suit property. She claimed continued possession of the property and produced various documentary evidence, including a notarized marriage certificate, photographs, utility bills, and WhatsApp conversations with the deceased and the defendants.
The High Court meticulously evaluated the evidence available at the interlocutory stage. It took note of the plaintiff’s production of a notarized marriage certificate from the US, joint bank account statements, WhatsApp conversations, and other material substantiating her claim of marital status and financial contribution.
Importantly, the Court remarked, “It is the settled position under law that the absence of formal registration under the Foreign Marriage Act, 1969 cannot, by itself, render a marriage void, especially at the stage of interim relief. Marriages solemnized abroad, even without compliance under the Act, may still be valid under Indian law based on personal law and circumstantial evidence.”
The Court further observed that the Foreign Marriage Act was intended to provide a legal framework but not to invalidate genuine relationships merely due to procedural lapses, “The law recognizes social and personal relationships that may not align strictly with statutory processes. If parties undergo marriage as per the foreign country's customs, supported by proof of cohabitation and social recognition, such marriage may be accorded legal sanctity in India unless contrary to public policy.”
The Court noted that the appellants themselves had admitted in their affidavits that the plaintiff had resided in the suit property with the deceased. Such admissions, coupled with documentary evidence, reinforced her claim of continued possession. It rejected the appellants’ allegation of suppression of an earlier suit and acknowledged that the plaintiff had disclosed it in the plaint and opted for comprehensive reliefs in the present suit.
The Court concluded that the plaintiff had established a strong prima facie case, and that the balance of convenience tilted in her favour. Dispossession during the pendency of proceedings would cause irreparable injury.
Finding no merit in the appeals, the High Court dismissed all four Miscellaneous First Appeals. It upheld the trial court’s order granting interim injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, restraining the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiff or alienating the suit schedule property. The injunction was directed to remain in force until the final disposal of the suit.
Picture Source :
