R.S.A. No. 3862 of 2004 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 3862 of 2004 (O&M) Date of decision: 19.02.2009 Jasbir Kaur ....Appellant Versus Jaswant Singh and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: Mr. Vikas Bahl, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Arun Palli, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Sarju Puri and Mr. Sunil Garg, Advocates, for the respondents. ***** VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL) This regular second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 29.7.2004 passed by the learned lower appellate Court vide which the suit filed by the plaintiff/appellant for seeking declaration that the marriage performed by defendant/respondent was illegal, null and void and not binding on her rights as first wife of the defendant/respondent. The plaintiff pleaded that she was earlier married to brother of defendant No. 1 and after his death, she was got married to defendant/respondent No. 1 by way of chadder andazi. The learned trial Court decreed the suit. However, the learned lower appellate Court reversed the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court. The learned lower appellate Court held that the R.S.A. No. 3862 of 2004 (O&M) -2- plaintiff/appellant in her statement stated that chadder andazi was performed by her father, who held four corners of the chaddar and put on the appellant as well as on the respondent/defendant Jaswant Singh. A categorical stand was taken that apart from other respectables of village Dipalpur, Lambardar Chanan Singh also witnessed the marriage. The appellant admitted that she had a child of 1 ½ months born from the loins of her husband Dilbag Singh. The learned lower appellate Court noticed that all the four witnesses i.e. PW-1 Dr. Ujagar Singh, PW-2 Mohinder Singh, PW-3 Joginder Singh and PW-4 Santokh Singh were silent about the ceremony, but admitted in cross-examination that no ceremony of chaddar andazi took place. Thus on appreciation of evidence, the finding of the learned trial Court stands reversed. Mr. Vikas Bahl, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, vehemently contends that finding by learned lower appellate Court is outcome of mis-reading of evidence, as PW-3 had categorically stated that chaddar andazi was performed in his presence. There is no force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. The witnesses i.e. PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4 did not admit their presence at the time of performance of chaddar andazi. The learned lower appellate Court took note of the fact that father of the appellant/plaintiff did not appear to support version put up by the plaintiff/appellant, though the specific stand was taken that the chaddar andazi was, in fact, performed by him. It was on account of appreciation of evidence on record that the learned lower appellate Court was pleased to reverse the finding recorded by the learned trial Court to hold that the plaintiff has failed to prove that the marriage was performed by chaddar andazi. R.S.A. No. 3862 of 2004 (O&M) -3- The learned counsel for the appellant also contends that PW- 4 had also supported the case of the plaintiff/appellant and his evidence has also been mis-read. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that for the performance of kreva marriage, no ceremonies are required, therefore, the learned lower appellate Court could not have non-suited the appellant/plaintiff on the said ground. This plea also does not have any force. The plaintiff/appellant was required to prove her marriage by leading cogent evidence. Once specific stand taken by the plaintiff/appellant with regard to chaddar andazi stood falsified by the witnesses, who were said to be present at the time of chaddar andazi, and also in view of the fact that the best evidence was withheld from the Court, the finding recorded by the learned lower appellate Court cannot be said to be outcome of mis- reading of evidence or perverse, so as to call for interference by this Court in exercise of power under Section 100 CPC. This appeal raises no substantial question of law. No merit. Dismissed in limine. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge February 19, 2009 R.S.