Details - Dhemaji District Judiciary

8
15. In the case in hand, coming on the POINT NO.1 and ITS RELATED ASPECTS,
it appears that the second party disputed the marital status of the first party with
him. Let us see whether the petitioner is a ‘wife’ in view of Section 125 Cr.P.C. or
not. From the unrebutted evidence of the P.W’s it is clear that on 28-12-2009, the
second party, who was in love with first party took the first party with him and
thereafter on 31-12-2009 executed an agreement for marriage marked as Ext. 1
before the Notary at Sonitpur district, Assam. The content of the said agreement
speaks that the parties herein voluntarily and out of their free will married each
other and they recognized themselves as ‘husband’ and ‘wife’ for all purposes.
Generally, an agreement of marriage, does not ipso facto constitute a marriage
unless the same is supported by other materials in as much as there are separate
provisions for registration of marriage before the Register of marriage and Divorce,
which nowadays, is compulsory. But, let us see as to whether the parties really
translated their agreement into action i.e. whether the parties passed their lives as
husband and wife or not ?
16. The learned counsel for the petitioner, during the course of argument submitted that
although the parties to the case fall under the category ‘Hindu’, yet they, being the
tribal persons, are having their own customs in which when a man and woman of
adult age lives together as husband and wife, and, the members of their respective
families sit together and recognize the relationship of that man and woman as
husband and wife, it is known as ‘mitir’. He submits that in the case in hand ‘mitir’
was performed in between the family members of the parties and therefore, it is
clear that the parties are husband and wife. Mr. J. Dutta, the ld. counsel for the
second party, although admitted the concept of ‘mitir’, however does not admit the
‘mitir’ in between the parties. First of all, from the Ext. 1 it appears that the same
bears the signatures of both the parties in the presence of the witness. That the
Exts. 1 (4) to 1(6) and the photo appearing in the joint photographs are the
signatures and photo of the second party in Ext. 1 has not been denied by the
second party in his evidence. Moreover, the P.W.2 Dipali Basumatary who is an
independent witness, categorically stated that the parties took her to Tezpur court
wherein the parties executed a marriage agreement in her presence and she put her
thumb impression in the said agreement. The P.W.4 Swargashree Basumatary in
her evidence stated that when the second party came to their house, he told that he
would marry the first party in the court and from Udishna Basumatary she came to
know that he did court marriage with her. The evidence of theses witnesses to the