s HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH GORAM: HON'BLE MR. T.P. SHARMA AND HON'BLE MR. R.N. CHANDRAKAR, JJ. APPELLANT: RESPdNDENT: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.N. CHANDRAKAR First Appeal (M) No.23 of 2008 Sushant Mukherji Versus Ku. Poonam Jaiswal JUDGMENTFQRCONSIDERATION 5 . <^y-L^^e-. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge Post for prcnouncement of iudament on ^ October. 2009 Sd/- ^' ^ APPELLANT/ (Applicant) HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH ^ <!/ ORAM: HON'BLE MR. T.P. SHARIVIA AND HON'BLE MR. R.N. CHANDRAKAR, JJ. NDENT/? (Non-af^plicant) First Appeal (M) No.23 of 2008 Sushant Mukherji S/o Shri K.R. Mukherji, aged about 30 years, R/o MIGII/1 Sada Colony Jamnipali Korba, Tahsil Katghora Distt. Korba C.G. Versus' Ku. Pbonam Jaiswal D/o Shri Umakant Jaiswal, aged about 24 years, R/o Plot No.101 Sada Colony Jamnipali Korba, Tahsil Katghora, Distt. Korba C.G. {[First appeal under Section 19ofthe Family Courts Act, 1984} Present Mr. Rakesh Pandey,counsel for the appellant. Mr. Parag Kotecha, counsel for the respondent. The JUDGMENT ('i-v^ October, 2009) followina order of the Court was passed bv T.P. Sharma, J: 1. By tlpis appeal under Section 19 (1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, the appellant has challenged the legality & propriety of the judgment & decree dated 10-1-2008 passed bythe Judge, FamilyCourt, Camp Court Katg|hora, Distt. Korba in Civil Suit No.17-A/2007, whereby learned Judge, Family Court has dismi?sed the suit for restitution of conjugal rights filed by the appellant herein. 2. Judgment & decree are challenged on the ground that the Judge, Family Court has not considered the evidence sufficient to prove the factum of validj marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act') and 1 maternal relation between the parties, and thereby committed illegality. fli. '••^^ •\ r- ^ ^—^ 3T:Briefi facts giving rise to this appeal, according to the pleadings of the partites (as per pleading of the appellant), are that the parties are 1 gov6rned by the Hindu law and illegally wedded spouses, they married in Aryal Samaj Mandir. The respondent has failed to discharge her matnmonial obligation and is not residing with the appellant without any just jand reasonable cause. Petition under Section 9 of the Act for restitution ofconjugal rights was fjled by the appellant. 4. The jrespondent has denied the allegation of the petition and specifically pleaded that she has never married the appellant and the appellant is not her legally wedded husband. The appellant was her tutor, he was in domjnating position and has obtained her signature over some paper at Aryal Samaj Mandir. She objected and informed her parents. The matter was | enquired by the parents/respondent and the appeltant intimated them that he has married the respondent at Arya Samaj Mandir and also shown some photographs. Again they executed document dated 3-2- 2004 in the style of compromise declaring the alleged marriage void. The jrespondent is not the legally wedded wife ofthe appellant and has i nev^r discharged her matrimonial obligations. The appellant obtained signature of the respondent over certain documents by misrepresentation. The respondent herself has filed a petition for declaring the marriage void. 5. On the basis of averments of the parties, learned Judge, Family Court has iframed issues and after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties, learned Judge, Family Court has dismissed the petition for I ' restitution of conjugal rights on the ground that the parties are not Hindu ! legally wedded spouses, therefore, the appellant is not entitled for restitution of conjugal rights. '"€.^ 1, ;^ J IIN^ 6. We liiave heard learned counsel for the appellant, perused the judgment impugned and record of the Court below. i 7. Cou^isel for the respondent has not argued the matter. 8. Learhed counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the resppndent is not minor, she is a major woman and both the parties have 1 maril'ied at Arya Samaj Mandir, Sakti. After marriage, parents of the resp^indent have forcefully took the respondent to their house and had never sent her back. Parents of the respondent have forcefully obtained 1 the signature of the appellant over an agreement. The respondent is legally wedded .wife of the appellant and she is not discharging the matrimonial obligations. 9. In oij'der to appreciate the contentions of the parties and to decide the real 'pontroversy, we have examined the evidence adduced on behalf of 1 the parties. 10.At t(ie instance of the respondent herein, the marriage has been 1 declared nuli & void in Civil Suit No.16-A/2007 vide judgment & decree dated 10-1-2008 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Camp Court Katghora, Distt. Korba. The appellant herein has preferred an appeal agaihstthe said judgment & decree before this Court in First Appeal (M) 1 No.24/2008 and the same has been decided by this Court vide judgment & d6cree dated 27th October, 2009 wherein the declaration of marriage and matrimonial status as null & void has been affirmed. In the light of the judgment & decree dated 27th October, 2009 passed in First Appeal (M) No.24/2008 by this Court, the present appeal is also liable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed with costs. 11.Advocate fees as per schedule. 12.Decifee be drawn up accordingly. ^';':;.-^ Soma I; ^ 13.A coipyof this judgment & decree be placed in the record of First Appeal (M) lljo.24/2008. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge