IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 23RD MARCH 2009 / 2ND CHAITHRA 1931 SA.No. 302 of 1997(C) --------------------- AS.3/1994 of SUB COURT, HOSDRUG ` OS.542/1992 of MUNSIFF COURT, HOSDRUG .................... APPELLANT(S)/APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF: -------------- C.RAMANI, D/O.LATE C.AMBADY, RESIDING AT TRIKKANNAD IN PALLIKKERE VILLAGE OF HODURG TALUK, P.O.BEKAL. BY ADV. SMT.A.C.VIDHYA RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS: --------------- 1. P.K.VIJAYAN, S/O.PALLATHIL KARTHA KANNAN, RESIDING AT PALLATHIL IN UDMA VILLAGE OF HOSDURG TALUK, P.O.UDMA, DIST. KASARAGO. 2. SAVITHRI, RSIDING AT TRIKKANNAD, NOW RESIDING WITH R1 (PALLATHIL), IN UDMA VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, P.O.UDMA, DIST. KASARAGOD. ADV. SRI.V.N.ACHUTHA KURUP, SENIOR ADVOCATE ADV. SMT. BINDU SREEKUMAR THIS SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- S.A.No.302 of 1997 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of March, 2009. JUDGMENT Claiming that she got married to respondent No.1 at her house on 9.3.1986 as per the rites and custom applicable to the community to which they belong and that thereafter herself and respondent No.1 cohabited in the house of the latter as husband and wife and alleging that after respondent No.1 went to Gulf at the expense of her relatives, returned therefrom and is about to marry respondent No.2, appellant filed the suit for declaration of her marital status with respondent No.1 and for a decree for prohibitory injunction restraining him from marrying a second time. Respondent No.1 denied that he married the appellant or cohabited with her. He denied the allegation that he had been to Gulf with the assistance of appellant and her father. He claimed to have married respondent No.2 about six months before. Respondent No.2 also contended that she was married to respondent No.1 six months back. Appellant gave evidence as PW1 and examined PWs 2 and 3. She proved Exts.A1 to A5 series. Brother of respondent No.1 was examined as DW1. Respondent No.2 gave evidence as DW2. Learned Munsiff found that the alleged marriage is not proved and dismissed the suit. First appellate court concurred with the findings of the learned Munsiff. Hence, the Second Appeal raising the following as substantial questions of law:- SA No.302/1997 2 (i) Whether the courts below were legally right in not drawing the necessary adverse inference from respondent No.1 not entering the witness box? (ii) Whether interpretation given to the statements in the letters of respondent No.1 is legally right? 2. It is argued by the learned counsel for appellant that respondent No.1 has not entered the witness box to controvert the evidence given by the appellant as PW1 and through PWs 2 and 3. It is also contended by the learned counsel that the courts below went wrong in interpreting Exts.A1 to A4 to hold that there was no marriage. Learned counsel for respondents supported the findings. 3. PW2 is the broker who is said to have arranged the marriage between the appellant and respondent No.1. PW3 is the mother of the appellant. Going through the evidence of PW1 it would appear that the only person who had attended the marriage apart from her family members is PW2, broker. PW1 could not say the day or even month of her marriage. She could not also say whether the marriage was on 9.3.1986 or whether she had told the date of marriage to her advocate to be stated in the plaint. PW3 being the mother of the appellant is interested in speaking in her favour. Courts below found that the evidence given by PWs 1 to 3 is not sufficient to hold in favour of the disputed marriage. So far as Exts.A1 to A4 are concerned, courts below SA No.302/1997 3 observed that the handwriting in the various letters purported to have been sent by respondent No.1 to the appellant is different. Even if Ext.A1, letter is accepted as one sent by respondent No.1 to the appellant that indicated that as on the date of that letter, there was no marriage between the appellant and respondent No.1 since respondent No.1 was expressing his wish to be united (in marriage) with the appellant. The mere fact that respondent No.1 had not entered to the witness box is not sufficient to draw any adverse inference also since respondents have adduced evidence through DWs 1 and 2. The interpretation given to Exts.A1 to A4 is legally correct. No substantial question of law is involved. Resultantly, this Second Appeal fails. It is dismissed. No costs. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks SA No.302/1997 4 Thomas P.Joseph, J. S.A.No.302 of 1997 JUDGMENT 23rd March, 2009.