Chittatosh Mookerjee, J.@mdashThe appellant had brought a suit for a declaration that the marriage between himself and the respondent Anima Mondal according to Hindu rites-on May 4, 1974 was void ab initio on the ground that the parties were within the degrees of prohibited relationship and also because the marriage was against the will of the petitioner. The learned Additional District Judge, 11th Court, 24 Perga-nas has ex-parte dismissed the said suit. Hence this appeal. The appellant has filed an application for adducing additional evidence about the relationship Between himself and the respondent. Having heard the learned advocates for the parties and having considered the materials on record, we hold that the marriage between the parties was neither void nor voidable. -Therefore, he was not entitled to either to a decree declaring the marriage a nullity or for annulling the same In cur view, the appellant has failed to prove that the parties were within the degrees of prohibited relationship within the meaning of clause (iv) of Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The court below has rightly pointed out that the appellant had failed to examine any of his parents or persons who were likely to have a special knowledge about the relationship of the parties. Therefore, the suit brought by the plaintiff-appellant was bound to fail on the ground that the appellant had failed to prove his case. We have also considered the plaintiff''s claim That both the parties were descendants of one Rajnarayan. But we find that they were neither within sapinda relationship nor within the ''prohibited relationship'' of each other.
2. According to the appellant. Rajnarayan had three sons- Srikanta, Dharanidbar, and Bhutnath. Srikanta''s son was Gajendra. Respondent. Anima''s mother, Nandarani, was a daughter of Gajendra Dharanidhar was another son of Rajnarayan. Dharani-dhar''s son was Pearirnohan. Pearimohan''s son was Bharat Chandra. /The appellant is the son of Bharat Chandra
3. The expression "sapinda relationship" and "degrees of prohibited relationship" in clauses (iv) and (v) of section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 are to be interpreted according to the definitions given in sub clauses (f) and (g") of section 3 of he said Act and it is no longer permissible to import the concepts of "sapinda" and ''prohibited relationship" according to the text and the rules of Hindu Law which u/s 4(a) of the Act have ceased to have effect with respect to the matters for which provision has been made in the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
4. Sapinda relationship u/s 3(f) (i) of the Act with reference to any person extends as far as the third generation (inclusive) in the line of ascent through the mother, and the fifth (inclusive) in the line of ascent through the father, the line being upwards in each case from the person concerned, who is to be counted as the first generation. Under sub clause (ii) of clause (f) of section 3 of the Act when parties have a common ascendant, sapinda relationship has to be traced with reference to each of them.
5. According to the appellant, Rajnarayan was he common ancestor of the two parties. Anima traced her descent from Rajnarayan through her mother Nandarani. Therefore, with reference to other lineal descendants of Rajnarayan, Anima''s sapinda relationship extended up to the third generation, i e. up to Gajendra.
6. Further, sub-clause (ii) of clause (f) of section 3 of the Act, enjoins that the common lineal ascendant must, be within the limits of sapinda. relationship with reference to each of them, i. e. both the parties to marriage. Therefore it is immaterial that Sudarshan, who was related wholly through was in the fifth line of descent from Rajnarayan We also hold that the relationship between the parties was also not specified in any of the sub clauses of clause (g) of Section 3 of the Hindu Marriage Act and accordingly they were not within the prohibited relationship to each other. Therefore, the marriage between the parties was not in contravention of the clauses (iv) and (v) of section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The marriage of the parties was neither void u/s 11 nor voidable u/s 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
7. The court below has also disbelieved that the appellant''s consent to the marriage was obtained by for or coercion The learned advocate for the appellant has not also disputed the correctness of the said findings.
8. In the circumstances, we dismiss this appeal.
9. There will be no order as to cost. The application is disposed of without any order as to costs.
Sharma, J.
I agree.
