No Credible Evidence Of Marriage: Madras High Court Denies Maintenance To Woman
The Madras High Court said that the focus of the witnesses’ testimonies appeared to be more on discrediting the conduct of the Defendant, rather than offering substantive proof on the core issue before the Court, namely, whether the Plaintiff was the legally wedded wife of the Defendant.
Justice C.V. Karthikeyan, Justice R. Vijayakumar, Madras High Court, Madurai Bench
The Madras High Court has overturned the Order granting maintenance to a woman, holding that there is no credible evidence of marriage between the parties and that the Trial Court reached conclusion based on unreliable witness.
The Madurai Bench was hearing an Appeal Suit preferred by a man under Section 96 read with Order XLI of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC), challenging the Judgment of the Family Court.
A Division Bench comprising Justice C.V. Karthikeyan and Justice R. Vijayakumar observed, “In the present case, the learned Trial Judge completely omitted reference to the evidence of D.W.2 and D.W.3. The learned Judge placed total reliance solely on the testimony of P.W.3, which, in our considered opinion, was not the correct approach, particularly, since P.W.3 himself was an interested and therefore, unreliable witness. … There is absolutely no tangible, believable, or credible evidence of the factum of marriage between the plaintiff and the defendant.”
The Bench said that the focus of the witnesses’ testimonies appeared to be more on discrediting the conduct of the Defendant, rather than offering substantive proof on the core issue before the Court, namely, whether the Plaintiff was the legally wedded wife of the Defendant.
Advocate H. Lakshmi Shankar appeared on behalf of the Appellant/Plaintiff while Advocates N. Marimuthu and A. Chandrakumar appeared on behalf of the Respondent/Defendant.
Case Background
The Appellant-Plaintiff claimed that she had married the Respondent-Defendant who was also her relative, in the year 1973. She further claimed that at the time of marriage, her father had given her 100 sovereigns of gold jewellery, as well as silver items and other household articles worth approximately Rs. 15,000/-, and that the marriage was celebrated in a grand manner. She stated that she lived with the Defendant in his house, however, he began to torture her and also developed relationships with other women. Allegedly, this compelled her to leave the matrimonial home and take refuge at her father’s house. Her father passed away in 1990 and hence, she was unable to maintain herself. She lodged a complaint with the Panchayat, which directed the Defendant to pay monthly maintenance of Rs. 2,500/-.
According to the Plaintiff, the Defendant stopped making payments from March 2009 onwards. As a result, she filed a suit seeking Rs. 5,000/- as past maintenance and further to pay Rs. 2,500/- per month as maintenance as well as to pay the costs of litigation. However, the Defendant denied having any relationship with the Plaintiff and claimed that he did not even know who she was. He specifically denied having married her and stated that he had married his wife in 1981 and they have a son. He further alleged that there had been several litigations between him and his sister concerning disputes relating to property and that the suit had been instigated by his sister, who had set up the Plaintiff to file a false case against him. The Family Court decreed the suit after relying on the testimony of witness and evidence. Being aggrieved, the Defendant was before the High Court.
Reasoning
The High Court in the above context of the case, noted, “None of the witnesses provided credible, admissible, or convincing evidence on the central issue before the Court, namely, whether the plaintiff was the legally wedded wife of the defendant. … There is absolutely no reliable evidence to support the plaintiff’s claim of marriage, apart from oral assertions made by interested and clearly tutored witnesses, who appeared unwilling to state anything beyond what they were cajoled to say.”
The Court was of the view that all the witnesses stand discredited and are wholly unreliable and there is no evidence at all to support a particular fact except for the statements of the witnesses, which are wholly unreliable.
“There is no evidence to show that the marriage was conducted in a grand manner and no evidence to show that her father gave her 100 sovereigns of gold apart from silver and household articles. There is no evidence to establish the proceedings before the Panchayat or the direction of the Panchayat to the defendant to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.2,500/- to the plaintiff. There is no evidence to show that a Police complaint was lodged on alleged breach by the defendant to pay maintenance or that a legal notice was issued. Even the marriage invitation card was not produced by the plaintiff”, it added.
The Court reiterated that when there is a conflict of oral evidence on any issue, and the resolution of that issue turns upon the credibility of witnesses, the opinion of the Trial Court should ordinarily prevail; however, the First Appellate Court also has a duty to reappraise the evidence and determine whether the Trial Court’s appreciation of the evidence suffers from any material irregularity or is based on inadmissible evidence, misreading of evidence, or on conjectures and surmises.
“The conclusion reached by the learned Trial Judge is based on conjectures and surmises drawn from wholly unreliable evidence. We are firmly of the view that the learned Judge misdirected herself in appreciating the oral evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3. Both these witnesses and indeed also the witnesses examined on behalf of the defendant were interested parties from the same village, yet each disclaimed knowledge of material facts asserted by the opposite side. Such evidence is inherently improbable and forcefully suggests that the witnesses were tutored”, it remarked.
Conclusion
Furthermore, the Court said that the only conclusion that has to be drawn is to reject the evidence adduced, and hold that the Plaintiff has failed to establish, even on balance of probabilities, that she married the Defendant.
“There is no evidence whatsoever to support the claim that such a marriage took place, nor is there evidence to prove that 100 sovereigns of gold jewellery were given, or that silver and household articles worth Rs.15,000/- were provided to the plaintiff. Furthermore, there is no evidence to establish cohabitation between the plaintiff and the defendant, or that any Panchayat was convened wherein the defendant was allegedly directed to pay Rs.2,500/- per month as maintenance”, it also noted.
The Court, therefore, concluded that the Trial Judge misdirected herself in appreciating unreliable evidence to the undue advantage of the Plaintiff and in the absence of any credible evidence, her Judgment is unsustainable and does not withstand appellate scrutiny.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Appeal Suit and set aside the Family Court’s Judgment.
Cause Title- ABC v. XYZ (Case Number: A.S.(MD)No.92 of 2018)
