JUDGMENT M. Katju, J.
1. In this case on 15.4.1997, learned standing counsel was granted three week to file counter-affidavit but although more than two years have expired, no counter-affidavit has been filed. Hence, I treat the allegations made in the petition to be correct and dispose of this petition.
2. The petitioner was Constable in the U. P. Police. He has challenged the impugned orders dated 20.12.1992. 30.4.1994 and 17.2.1997, Annexures-9, 10 and 14 to the petition. By order dated 20.12.1992 the petitioner's services was dismissed on the ground that while his wife Smt. Savitri was alive, he married one Smt. Yashoda as a second wife and hence violated Rule 7 of the relevant Service Rules. Against the dismissal order, the petitioner filed appeal and revision and both have been dismissed, hence this writ petition.
3. It has been held by the Supreme Court in Surjit Kaur v. Garja Singh, AIR 1994 SC 135, that for a valid marriage, the customary ceremonies have to be alleged and proved, and merely living together as husband and wife would not confer, the status of husband and wife.
4. Under Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, a Hindu marriage may be solemnized in accordance with the customary rites and ceremonies of either party thereto, and where such rites and ceremonies include the Saptapadi (that is the taking of seven steps by the bridegroom and the bride Jointly before the sacred fire), the marriage becomes complete and binding when the seventh step is taken. Hence, to prove the second marriage of the petitioner, there should have been some evidence to establish that the second marriage was in accordance with the customary rites and ceremonies but there is no such evidence in the present case.
5. In the present case, there is neither any evidence nor any proof that customary rites and ceremonies were performed between petitioner and Smt. Yashoda. In fact, the enquiry officer's report copy of which is Annexure-4A to the writ petition mentioned that the alleged marriage between the petitioner and Yashoda has not been proved in the circumstances. I hold that the alleged marriage between the petitioner and Smt. Yashoda has not been established.
6. Petition is allowed and the impugned orders dated 20.12.1992, 30.4.1994 and 17.2.1997 are quashed.