R.S.A.No. 2550 of 2007(O&M) {1} In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 2550 of 2007(O&M) Date of Decision:August 11, 2009 Virpal Kaur ---Appellant versus Rajinder Kaur and another ---Respondents Coram: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA *** Present: Mr. Deepak Thapar,Advocate, for the appellant Mr.Dharminder Singh, Advocate, for respondent No. 1 Mr. Ishar Singh, Advocate for respondent No. 2 *** SABINA J. Plaintiff –Virpal Kaur had filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the defendants. Additional Civil Judge ( Senior Division), Bathinda vide judgment and decree dated 23.12.2006 dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the same, plaintiff preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by Additional District R.S.A.No. 2550 of 2007(O&M) {2} Judge, Bathinda vide judgment and decree dated 14.6.2007. Hence, the present appeal. The facts of the case as noticed by the learned trial court, in paras 2 and 3 of its judgment read as under:- “The brief facts of the case of the plaintiff are that the marriage between the plaintiff and defendant No. 2 was solemnized according to the Anand Karj ceremony on 13.4.1994 at Vill. Ushman Khera, Distt. Ferozepur and they cohabited as such at Vill. Ushman Khera, Village Bajak and at Bathinda and a child namely Ranbir Singh was born out of this wedlock. The relation between plaintiff and def. No. 2 remained strained w.e.f. January, 1995 to June, 1995 and the plaintiff was turned out by def. No. 2 at the instance of his parents and the plaintiff filed a petition u/s 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act and the same was compromised with the intervention of the panchayat. Def. No.1 used to black mail deft. no. 2 by falsely alleging herself to be the wife of def. No. 2. The alleged second marriage of def. No. 1 with def. No. 2 is no marriage in the eyes of law and the same is illegal, null, void, ab-initio, keeping in view the provisions of Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act,. Def. No. 1 is alleging the representing herself to be the alleged wife of def. No. 2 and is bent upon entering intol the matrimonial house of the plaintiff and def. No. 2 and def. No. 2 is further bent upon illegally and forcibly to enter into the house of in laws of the plaintiff and further threatened all of them and their relations, to involve in false, criminal cases. Def. No. 1 along R.S.A.No. 2550 of 2007(O&M) {3} with some unknown person made the attempts to enter into the matrimonial house of the plaintiff. Hence this suit. Upon notice, the defendants appeared through counsel and filed their separate written statement. Def. No. 1 filed written statement taking legal objections that the plaintiff has got no locus standi or cause of action to file the present suit; the plaintiff has concealed the material facts from the curt and has not come to the court with clean hands; suit of the plaintiff is false, vexatious and frivolous and the defendant No. 1 is entitled to special cost to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- u/s 35-A CPC; the plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit by her act and conduct; this court has got no jurisdiction to try the present suit. A prayer for dismissal of the suit with costs has been made. Def. No. 2 filed his separate written statement wherein he admitted the claim of the plaintiff.” On the pleadings of the parties, trial court framed the following issues:- “(1)Whether the plaintiff is legally wedded wife of def. No. 2 and def. No. 2 has no matrimonial relations with def. No. 1?OPP (2)If issue No. 1 is proved, whether the plaintiffs is entitled declaration as prayed for ? OPP (3)Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for ? OPP (4)Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD R.S.A.No. 2550 of 2007(O&M) {4} (5)Whether this court has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit? OPD (6)Relief. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. Plaintiff-Virpal Kaur had filed a suit for declaration that she was legally wedded wife of defendant No. 2 and defendant No. 1 had no matrimonial relations of any kind with defendant No. 2. Defendant No. 2- Ranjit Singh in his written statement had admitted that he had been married to the plaintiff on 13.4.1994. Respondent No. 1 was not his legally wedded wife. Both the courts below, after appreciating the evidence on record have given a finding of fact that appellant had failed to establish that she was legally wedded wife of respondent No. 2. In this regard both appellant and respondent No. 1 Rajinder Kaur did not examine any witness to prove their marriage with respondent No. 2. Ranjit Singh-respondent No. 2 himself did not appear in the witness box. Balwinder Singh, who was alleged to a mediator with regard to the marriage of respondent No. 1 with respondent No. 2 was not examined. Both the appellant as well as respondent No. 1 claimed themselves to be the wives of respondent No. 2. They failed to prove the performance of any ceremony of marriage. Exs. R-1 and R-2 reveal that respondent No. 2 had filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act against respondent No. 1 Rajinder Kaur claiming that his marriage has been solemnized with her on 17.2.1995. In these circumstances both the courts below have rightly held that in the facts and circumstances of the case merely because respondent No. 2 had admitted in the written statement that appellant was his wife would ipso facto be not R.S.A.No. 2550 of 2007(O&M) {5} sufficient to hold that appellant was legally wedded wife of respondent No. 2. In the absence of any corroborative evidence regarding proof of performance of marriage ceremonies between appellant and respondent No. 2, the suit of the plaintiff was liable to fail. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE August 11, 2009 PARAMJIT