It is trite that in matrimonial relationship, locus standi to challenge the factum of marriage or a relief for its annulment can only be claimed by one of the spouses and no other person can seek the relief about annulment of the matrimonial relationship. In our considered opinion, the learned trial Court has rightly concluded that no cause of. action has accrued to the appellants to file the suit and they are having no locus to lay a suit of such a nature. By filing such a suit, the appellants are per-se guilty of abusing the process of the Court and taking cognizance of this sort of conduct of the appellants, the learned Court below has rightly saddled them with the cost of Rs. 5,000/- each.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Decided On: 24.02.2014
Appellants: Dilip
Vs.
Respondent: Ravi
Vs.
Respondent: Ravi
Judges/Coram:Dinesh Maheshwari and Pratap Krishna Lohra , JJ.
Citation; AIR 2014 Raj 89
1. Disdained by the impugned judgment and decree dt. 23.01.2013 of the Family Court, Udaipur in Case No. 94/2012, the appellants-plaintiffs have preferred this appeal under Sec. 19 of the Family Courts Act 1984 (for short, 'Act of 1984'). By the impugned judgment and decree, the learned Family Court has dismissed the suit filed by the appellants for declaration under Sec. 7(1) Explanation (b) of the Act of 1984 read with Section 9 CPC and Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act 1963 (for short, 'Act of 1963') for annulment of the marriage solemnized on 10.06.2009 between first and second respondent. Succinctly stated, the facts of the case are that the first respondent, who is son of the appellants, entered into matrimony with the second respondent on 10.06.2009 at his own volition without concurrence of the appellants. In the plaint, it was inter-alia averred by the appellants that the marriage was not solemnized as per Hindu rites and rituals and no Saptapadi was performed. In that background, while disowning the marriage, the appellants have stated in the plaint that the alleged marriage has no legal sanctity and the same cannot be recognized as a valid marriage. With a view to substantiate cause of action, the appellants have pleaded that rumors about the alleged marriage between respondent No. 1 & 2 has denigrated their social reputation and status in the Society, and therefore, they are well within their rights to seek determination about legal character of the alleged marriage under Sec. 34 of the Act of 1963 as well as Section 7(1) Explanation (b) of the Act of 1984.
2. The suit was contested by the respondents and a written statement was submitted denying all the allegations.
3. In the reply jointly submitted by the respondents, it was alleged that the marriage was solemnized as per rites and rituals of Hindu Law and Saptapadi was also performed. The respondents have also averred in the reply that solemnization of marriage between both the respondents was within the knowledge of the appellants but they were not happily disposed with the inter-caste liaison between both of them. Thus, according to the respondents, the factum of inter-caste marriage was not tolerated by the appellants and this frivolous litigation is nothing but a sheer act of frustration founded on their stubborn and orthodox notion or emotional aversion. Refuting the allegations contained in the plaint, the respondents have also submitted in the reply that marriage between both the parties is also registered with the Marriage Registration Officer, Gram Panchayat Bada Bhanuja, Panchayat Samiti Khamnore, District Rajsamand. In the return, a specific objection was incorporated that both the spouses were major at the time of marriage and have contacted the marriage with free-will, the appellants are having no locus standi to question their marital status much less seeking declaration for annulment of the marriage.
4. The Family Court, after submission of written statement, examined the issue relating to jurisdiction of the Court to try such a suit and proceed to decide the preliminary objections about maintainability of the suit at the threshold. The learned Court below, after examining the provisions contained under Sec. 7(1) Explanation (b) of the Act of 1984 has concluded that the appellants are having no locus standi to question the marriage between both the respondents. For non-suiting the appellants, the learned Court below has also observed that at the time of marriage both the spouses were major and the marriage legally solemnized and registered with the Registrar of Marriage, cannot be annulled at the behest of appellants for want of invasion of their civil rights. While castigating the appellants for their false ego and so called inhibition against the concept of inter-caste marriage, the learned Court below has also imposed a cost of Rs. 5,000/- each on both the appellants with a clear finding that no cause of action has accrued to them for instituting the suit.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the impugned judgment rendered by the learned Family Court, Udaipur.
6. As a rule of general practice, in such appeals, record of the learned trial Court is requisitioned, but looking to the alleged lis involved in the matter and on examining the impugned judgment, we feel dissuaded to abide by the general rule of practice of calling the record of the learned trial Court. The learned counsel for the appellants Mr. Nahar has placed before us the copy of plaint as well as the written statement for our perusal.
7. Upon perusal of the pleadings of the rival parties and the impugned judgment in light of Section 7(1) Explanation (b) of the Act of 1984 as well as under Sec. 34 of the Act of 1963, we are really perplexed that how and in what manner such a suit can be maintained at the behest of parents of one of the spouses.
8. It is trite that in matrimonial relationship, locus standi to challenge the factum of marriage or a relief for its annulment can only be claimed by one of the spouses and no other person can seek the relief about annulment of the matrimonial relationship. In our considered opinion, the learned trial Court has rightly concluded that no cause of. action has accrued to the appellants to file the suit and they are having no locus to lay a suit of such a nature. By filing such a suit, the appellants are per-se guilty of abusing the process of the Court and taking cognizance of this sort of conduct of the appellants, the learned Court below has rightly saddled them with the cost of Rs. 5,000/- each.
9. The orthodox notions, the primitive concept of casteism and so called family traditions are nothing but a blatant attempt to nurture and reinforce wholly obsolete and redundant perceptions against the inter-caste marriage. Such attempts are contrary to the Social Fabric of our Society having obvious ill-effects on the social model and educational ethos about concept of marriage in the present era. Need of the hour is to hatchet the abhorrent customs and taboos to have a pragmatic approach in such situations. Thus, viewed from any angle, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned Court below. Resultantly, the appeal lacks merit and the same is accordingly dismissed summarily.
No comments:
Post a Comment