The case of the appellant was that she and respondent Santosh Kumar Singh were coworkers and were known to each other. They fell in love and ultimately the respondent proposed to marry the appellant. The appellant agreed to such proposal and on 21.03.1999 marriage between them was solemnized at Dumerta Kali temple with observance of all rituals and ceremonies as befitting a Hindu Marriage in presence of one G. Naidu and the father of the appellant.
Soon thereafter both the parties consummated their marriage in the quarter of the respondent but on the next day the appellant was sent to her parent’s house by the respondent who promised to take her back after some days after obtaining the consent of his parents since they were not aware of such marriage. However, the respondent never turned up to take her back. Later the respondent told that he was going to marry some other girl and ultimately the respondent denied taking her back. Therefore, the appellant filed a suit seeking a declaration as the legally wedded wife of the respondent. The respondent pleaded that he had never married the appellant at any point of time and had no relationship with her.
The Hon’ble court observed that the appellant had stated in her evidence that on 21-3-1999 her marriage was performed with the respondent at Dumerta Kali Temple with the help of the Purohit according to Hindu Vedic rituals. There was a “HOMA” by the priest and thereafter her cloth was tied with the cloth of respondent and both of them went seven rounds around the sacred fire by way of performing “Saptapadi”. The respondent put vermilion on her forehead, her palm was tied with the palm of the respondent by the purohit and her father gave her “Kanyadan” to the respondent. Ganesh Naidu has also stated that the marriage was performed between the appellant and the respondent by chanting mantras and the respondent put Mangalsutra on the neck of the appellant. The evidence of the priest Hari Das who also stated likewise the evidence of these witnesses was disbelieved by the Trial Court on the ground that the priest does not remember the name of the star (nakshatra) which was prevalent during the time of marriage. It was also found certain discrepancies in the evidence of witness like “Saptapadi” has not been deposed to by Hari Das,putting of vermilion has not been deposed to by other witnesses etc. The court held that these discrepancies were minor in nature and do not go to the root of the case. The court also observed that kanyadan can be performed by any relative in absence of parents, therefore it must be presumed that all necessary ceremonies were performed, a little bit of discrepancies or omission would not render the marriage void.
Ranjan Kumari Singh Vs. Santosh Kumar Singh AIR 2010 Orissa 62.