1. This Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Decree dated 04.03.2002 passed by the learned 6th Addl. District Judge, Begusarai in Matrimonial Case No.11 of 1999 dismissing the applicant's application under Hindu Marriage Act.
2. The applicant-appellant filed an application praying for the reliefs that on adjudication, the Court be pleased to hold and declare that so called marriage of the petitioner with the opposite party alleged to have been solemnized in the year 1992 is null and void on the ground that both the spouse were minor in the year 1992 and the so called marriage was solemnized under duress, compulsion, threat and coercion. The plaintiffs prayed for the aforesaid reliefs pleading that from perusal of the F.I.R., it was disclosed that Mostt. Kranti Devi w/o Late Ram Kripal Singh gave statement that her daughter, Ranjana Devi was married with the appellant in the year 1992. She also alleged that dowry was demanded and subsequently applicant married second time. The said F.I.R. was registered under Section 494 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant. From perusal of application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., it appears to the appellant that it has been contended that marriage was solemnized in the year 1992. It is further pleaded that from perusal of case diary, it appears to the appellant that I.O. found that the appellant was kidnapped under gun point and was forced to marry with the respondent. The appellant never accepted the marriage or the marriage ever solemnized in the year 1992 and moreover according to the Investigating Officer after kidnapping, marriage was solemnized. According to the version of the mother of respondent, the marriage was done in 1992 but admittedly both of them were minor. Since the appellant is facing prosecution under Section 494 I.P.C. it is desirable that so called marriage may be declared as null and void. It is further alleged that both the parties never lived as husband and wife and there was no conjugal relation.
3. The opposite party-respondent appeared and filed written statement denying all the allegations made by the appellant and it is alleged that the marriage was solemnized with the consent by the parents of the parties and it was an arranged marriage. After marriage, dowry of Rs.50,000/- was demanded and for non-fulfillment of the dowry, she was being subject to cruelty and then applicant-appellant married second wife and, therefore, criminal case was filed. The opposite party-respondent also filed maintenance case under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
4. On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings, the learned Court below framed following issues:
(i) Is the suit as framed maintainable?
(ii) Whether the applicant has got valid cause of action or right to sue?
(iii) Whether the proceeding is hit by Law of Limitation?
(iv) Whether the marriage in between the parties solemnized on Ganga Dasahara in the year 1992?
(v) Whether the applicant was married by an act of kidnapping/abduction under threat of life?
(vi) Whether the applicant did not relish or lead the life covering marital status of o.p.?
(vii) Whether the applicant and o.p. at the time of marriage happens to be minor?
(viii) Whether the applicant is entitled for a decree of declaration of marriage as null and void?
(ix) What other relief or reliefs the applicant is entitled for?
5. After trial, the learned Court below found that the appellant is not admitting the marriage and, therefore, the provisions of Hindu Marriage Act are not applicable and dismissed the application of the appellant.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that it is the case made out in the F.I.R. and also in the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the opposite parties-respondent that marriage was solemnized in the year 1992 therefore, the application was filed praying for declaration that the said marriage is null and void but the learned Court below dismissed the said application. According to the learned counsel, the alleged marriage is void because in the year 1992, the appellant and the respondent both were minor. The learned counsel further submitted that the learned Court below has not appreciated evidences properly. On these grounds, the learned counsel submitted that the impugned Judgment and Decree are liable to be set aside and the appellant's application, i.e., Matrimonial case is allowed.
7. In spite of service of notice, nobody appeared on behalf of the opposite party-respondents.
8. In view of the above submissions of the appellant, the only point arises for consideration is as to "whether the application filed by the appellant who was numbered as Matrimonial Case No.11 of 1999 was maintainable before the matrimonial Court?"
9. From perusal of the plaint, the fact alleged by the applicant- appellant is that from perusal of the F.I.R. and the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and from perusal of case diary in criminal case, the applicant came to know about the fact of marriage. According to the applicant, the fact alleged in the F.I.R. and alleged in the 125 Cr.P.C. proceeding is wrong as there had been no marriage between the parties. In other words according to plaintiff whatever statement has been made in the F.I.R. or in the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. are wrong. Further, it is alleged that even if there was marriage, the Investigating Officer found that the marriage was solemnized after kidnapping the appellant. Therefore, according to the applicant, the marriage is null and void. In other words according to the appellant whatever evidence was found in the case diary by the Investigating Officer is correct and, therefore, on the basis of that evidence of the investigating Officer, it should be declared that the alleged marriage is void.
10. From the above pleading, it is clear that the applicant-appellant has not come to the Court giving full facts of the case. Nowhere in the application, had he admitted was that marriage solemnized between the parties. It is the specific case that from the F.I.R., he came to know about the marriage which is wrong. Now, in such circumstances when the marriage is not admitted by the appellant, there is no question of declaring the alleged marriage void. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is applicable only in case of admitted marriage. The different provisions have been made for declaring the admitted marriage either as void or nullity on certain grounds but firstly, the marriage is to be admitted only thereafter the question will be as to whether the marriage is void or nullity on any of the grounds that may be taken by the applicant. Here, it will not be out of place to mention here that the appellant is not admitting the marriage. According to him whatever statement is made by the mother of the opposite party-respondent in F.I.R. is wrong and whatever evidence has been collected by the I.O. is correct. The cause of action for the suit is stated to be the institution of F.I.R. and petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and filing application for amending the charge adding 498 (A) I.P.C. and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Therefore, admittedly in the present case according to the applicant, there was no marriage. This declaration that there had been no marriage between the parties cannot be granted by the matrimonial Court. From perusal of the application, it appears that the appellant is praying for deciding the correctness or falsehood of the criminal case. Whatever statement has been made by the appellant is not out of his personal knowledge but it is based on the F.I.R. and the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Since this is a pure question of law, in my opinion, the evidences are not necessary for consideration.
11. In view of my above discussion, in my opinion, in the present case, Hindu Marriage Act 1955 is not applicable and, therefore, the applicant-appellant is not entitled for any relief. The learned Court below has rightly, therefore, found that the application is not maintainable. The finding of the learned Court below on this point is, therefore, confirmed.
12. So far the other points/issues are concerned; it does not arise for consideration because I have held that the Act itself is not applicable.
13. In the result, I find no merit in this First Appeal and accordingly, this First Appeal is dismissed.