IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.252 of 2011 Santosh Kumar Singh, son of Bindeshwar Singh, resident of village-Basaha Tole Dumaria, P.S.-Babu Barahi, District-Madhubani. –Petitioner. VERSUS 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Director General-cum-Inspector General of Police, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4. The District Magistrate, Madhubani, District-Madhubani. 5. The Superintendent of Police, Madhubani, District-Madhubani. 6. The Officer Incharge, Bisfi Police Station, District-Madhubani. 7. The Officer Incharge, Town Police Station, District-Madhubani. 8. Ashok Kumar Singh, son of Sri Ram Swarath Singh, resident of village-Bisfi, Dih Tole, P.S.-Bisfi, District-Madhubani. 9. Rasmi Kumari, D/o-Sri Ashok Kumar, resident of village-Bisfi, Dih Tole, P.S.- Bisfi, District-Madhubani. –Respondents. ----------- 04 20.07.2011 Petitioner claims to be the lawfully wedded husband of respondent no.9. Our attention is drawn to the judgment of Principal Judge, Family Court, Madhubani in Matrimonial Case No.29 of 2008, which was decreed in terms of Section-9 of the Hindu Marriage Act on 18th February, 2009 as against the respondent no.9 who was as well opposite party therein. The Family Court has noticed that the parties were married. It further appears that in the proceedings respondent no.9 had appeared and denied the factum of marriage and further had pleaded that she cannot be forced to live with the petitioner. Notwithstanding the aforesaid, the Principal Judge, Family Court decreed the suit in terms of Section-9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Petitioner states that, in fact, it is the parents of respondent no.9 who are withholding her. We are not impressed. What petitioner is seeking to do is to enforce the decree of the Family Court in restitution of conjugal rights. Parties had 2 appeared in the Court and contested the matter and refused to stay together as husband and wife. It needs no authority that the decree as issued under Section-9 of the Hindu Marriage Act is not enforceable. The only consequence of the decree is that if parties do not accept the decree and act accordingly it seeks a right to the husband or to the parties in whose favour the decree has been issued to make that as a ground for seeking divorce. As from the records itself it appears that respondent no.9 is unwilling to stay with the petitioner and she is major now, we do not think that this writ petition is maintainable and calls for any interference by this Court. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Trivedi/ (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.) (Ashwani Kumar Singh, J.)