Surya Kant, J. - (1.) This regular second appeal has been filed by the defendant against whom a suit for permanent injunction to restrain him from remarrying without getting divorce from the plaintiff-respondent, has been decreed by both the courts.
(2.) It is an admitted fact that the respondent was married to Satbir Singh - elder brother of the appellant. Said Satbir Singh is stated to have died after eight months of the marriage though this fact was disputed by the appellant as according to him Satbir Singh had died on 15.3.1984. The respondent took up the plea that after the death of her husband, she was married to the appellant as per the customary law and since then both of them have been living as husband and wife. It is a pleaded case that out of the wedlock two daughters, namely, Sushma Bala (8 years) and Jyoti (3 years) were born. The appellant, however,started harassing the respondentplaintiff after some years in order to perform second marriage, which led the respondent to file the present suit.
(3.) Both the courts have returned a concurrent finding of fact that:- the respondent was firstly married to Satbir Singh real elder brother of the appellant; even according to the appellant, said Satbir Singh died on 15.3.1984; one of the daughter, namely, Sushma Bala was born to the respondent on 22.12.1987; in the birth certificate the appellant's name is mentioned as her father; in previous round of litigation, namely, grant of maintenance under section 125 Cr.P.C., the Judicial Magistrate First Class as well as the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide their orders Ex.P4 and P5 have held the appellant to be the husband of the respondent; while getting admitted younger daughter in the school, in the affidavit Ex.PW5/B, the appellant was shown to be father of the child, and similar was the position in Exhibits PW5/D to PW5/F; in the voters' list also, the respondent was earlier shown as wife of Satbir Singh but was later on shown as wife of the appellant. Some of the witnesses, namely, PW3, PW4 and PW5, who are from the village of the appellant only, too have deposed that the appellant and the respondent have been living as husband and wife. In his written statement though the appellant has disputed his marriage with the respondent, however, it is not his case that the two daughters born to the respondent are illegitimate children. Admittedly, both the children were born after the death of the appellant's brother Satbir Singh on 15.3.1984. Since kareva marriage, as per the customary law, is permissible amongst the parties, the concurrent finding of fact returned to this effect by the courts below is based upon correct appreciation of the evidence on record, warranting no interference in this regular second appeal. Dismissed.;