Nobody signs on Marriage registration certificate without reading it
The Family Court held and rightly so that it was
not possible to believe the case of the appellant that his signatures
were fraudulently obtained on the marriage registration certificate and
the notice of intended marriage as had it been so the appellant would
have surely lodged a complaint in the Police Station to that effect or at
least issued a notice to the respondent immediately after 30/01/2009.
It is necessary to note that the appellant is an educated person and
had also admitted that he used to sign documents only after reading
and perusing them. It is, therefore, most unlikely that he would have
signed on the marriage registration certificate without knowing the
contents of the documents. The appellant cannot deny his signature
on the marriage registration certificate on a flimsy ground that the
signature of the appellant on that certificate is in English whereas on
the notice of intended marriage the signature appears to be in Marathi.
We have perused both the documents. Both the documents bear the
photographs of the appellant. The appellant has signed both the
documents. The signatures of the appellant as well as the respondent
on one of the documents are in English and on the other document
both of them have signed in Marathi. This cannot be a ground for
holding that the appellant has not signed on the marriage registration
certificate. The Family Court has rightly considered the evidence of the
clerk from the SubRegistrar's office, examined on behalf of the
respondent that on 30/01/2009 the appellant and the respondent were
married to each other in the office of the SubRegistrar. We find
nothing in the cross examination of either the respondent or the clerk
from the office of the SubRegistrar to falsify the case of the
respondent. In fact, the admissions of the appellant in his cross
examination falsifies his case that fraud was played on him by the
father of the respondent. The admission of the appellant that he was
taken to the office of the Registrar of Marriages for signing the
documents, his admission that he was educated up to 10th Standard
and he did not sign on any documents without reading and
understanding them and his further admission that he had never
lodged any report or initiated any action against the father of the
respondent for the fraud practiced on him falsifies his case that fraud
was played on him by the father of the respondent. The submission
made on behalf of the appellant that there is non compliance of the
mandatory provisions of Section 12 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954
and, therefore, the marriage, if any, is liable to be declared as null and
void is liable to be rejected for the simple reason that the appellant has
not raised a plea in this regard in the petition. It is not pleaded by the
appellant that the marriage, if any, was null and void as the parties to
the marriage had not said that they took each other as their lawful wife
and husband. Since the issue sought to be raised on behalf of the
appellant is not a pure issue of law and is a mixed issue of law and
facts, the same cannot be considered for the first time in the first
appeal.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
FIRST APPEAL NO.270/2012
Naresh S/o Mangaldas Mehune,
...VERSUS...
Sangeeta D/o Gendlal Kambhale,
