A.Talukdar, J. - (1.) This First Appeal is directed against a judgment and decree dated May 29, 1991 passed by Shri B. N. Chandra, learned Judge, Xth Bench, City Civil Court, Calcutta in Title Suit No. 2356 of 1984 thereby dismissing the suit preferred by the Plaintiff/Appellant for declaring that the Defendant/Respondent is not a lawfully married wife of the Plaintiff/Appellant.
(2.) Shorn of details the facts giving rise to the First Appeal can be put in a short compass. The plaintiff/appellant filed a plaint on 21-12-94 before the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Calcutta which was transferred for disposal to the file of the learned Judge, Xth Bench, City Civil Court, Calcutta and was registered as Title Suit No. 2356 of 1984. The plaintiff/appellant inter alia prayed : (A) Declaration that the plaintiff did not marry the defendant in accordance with law at Dakshineswar or elsewhere on October 19, 1982 or on any other date as incorrectly recorded in a pretended certificate of Registrationof marriage in Schedule 'C' to the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 or at all; (B) Declaration that the said pretended application in Schedule 'A' to the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and the said pretended certificate of registration of purported marriage in Schedule 'C' to the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 or at all did not constitute or spell out lawful valid or binding marriage between the parties and is bad in law, null and void, inoperative and not binding on the Plaintiff herein; (C) Declaration that the plaintiff is not the lawfully wedded husband of the defendant or the defendant is not the lawfully wedded wife of the Plaintiff or that the defendant is not the wife of the Plaintiff and that the Plaintiff's status has remained unaffected in the facts and incidents of October 19, 1982 and December 4, 1984 or ever since and his status is even now that of a bachelor; (D) Cancellation of the pretended certificate of Marriage in Schedule 'C' and the pretended application in Schedule 'A' to the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 dated 4th December 1984 or of any other date purporting to record the pretended marriage between the plaintiff and the defendant; (E) Decree for permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from ascerting or boasting to the world at large that she is the lawfully wedded wife of the Plaintiff and from using the said purported certificate or registration of the pretended marriage; (F) Decree for permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from attacking or challenging the Plaintiff's legal status as a bachelor.
(3.) Repudiating the case as set out in the plaint of the plaintiff/appellant the Defendant/Respondent filed a written statement on 02-7-85 denying all the material allegations of the plaintiff/appellant. It was her case that after a spell of love affair the plaintiff/appellant married her and in the wedlock she conceived twice, however, her conception was aborted and that subsequently she has given birth to a child who is living.;