1 WP.5323/2010 mnm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5323 OF 2010 Mrs. Krishna Satish Singh ....Petitioner Vs. Satish Singh & Ors. ...Respondents Petitioner present in person Respondent No.3 present in person CORAM : SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATED : 17TH SEPTEMBER, 2010 P.C. : 1. The order which is challenged is the order in review passed by the Judge, IV Family Court, Bandra, Mumbai on 25th May 2010 in an application to review the earlier order of the said Judge dated 7th November 2009. 2. The Petitioner filed the Petition for restitution of conjugal rights. She applied for maintenance. She claims to be the wife of the Respondent No. 3. The marriage has been denied. 3. The learned Judge has correctly considered this seminal issue. The initial order dated 7th November 2009 proceeds on the footing that the marriage between the parties is itself under challenge and the Petitioner has nothing to prove prima facie that she is the legally wedded wife of the Respondent 2 WP.5323/2010 No.3. The order is on the correct premise. The Petitioner has sought to prove the marriage by certain documents all of which have been considered by the learned Judge in the order dated 7th April 2009. These documents are enumerated in paragraph 2. These are various receipts of the hotels in which the parties claims to have stayed and an envelope of the hotel. The learned Judge has taken into consideration of these documents and appreciated them to observe that these documents cannot prove marriage between the parties. On this premise the application has been correctly dismissed. 4. In the Review Petition filed by the wife the learned Judge has correctly framed the issues required thereunder. No new and important matter was brought to his notice. He has once again considered and appreciated the evidence as per the wife’s contention. 5. The learned Judge has observed certain interpolations in the date of the first receipt and the fact that those receipts do not even show the stay of both the parties in the hotel, much less the marriage. 6. The Petitioner wife relied upon two Emails sent by her dated 15th September 2008 and 1st November 2008 as also certain letters written by her to the Respondent No.3. These letters are annexed to this Petition also. I have gone through these documents. The Emails and the letters, though not replied, do not prove the marriage between the parties. 7. The Petitioner contends that the marriage took place in a hotel on 1st 3 WP.5323/2010 October 2008 in the absence of any witness. The marriage is neither certified by any person performing the marriage nor is it registered. 8. The learned Judge has correctly observed that there has been no marriage between the parties as there is no material irregularity that can be corrected in the Writ Petition for any relief to be granted for the Petitioner wife. 9. The Writ Petition is dismissed. (SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, J.)