IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Miscellaneous Appeal No.900 of 2010 Ishwardeo Rai, son of late Nandan Rai, resident of Village-Kharganma, Police Station- Phulparas, District- Madhubani ----- Applicant----- Appellant. Versus Sanjeeta Devi, wife of Ishwardeo Rai and daughter of Mahendra Rai, resident of Village- Chapahi, Police Station-Rajnagar, District- Madhubani ---- Opposite Party --- Respondent. ---------------------------------- 8. 12.8.2011 Heard Mr. Durga Nand Jha for the appellant, and Mr. Sharda Nand Jha for the respondent. Learned counsel for the appellant presses I.A. No. 9917 of 2010, filed under the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, seeking condonation of the delay of nine months and twelve days in preferring this appeal. In the circumstances, we condone the delay in filing this appeal subject to payment of costs of Rs.5,000/-(five thousand) to the respondent. I.A. No. 9917 of 2010 is accordingly disposed of. The matter is today before us under the heading “For Hearing Under Order 41, Rule 11 C.P.C.” The husband challenged the judgment dated 19.12.2009, passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Madhubani, in Matrimonial Case No. 72 of 2007 ( Ishwar Deo Rai Vrs. 2 Sanjeeta Devi), whereby his application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights has been rejected. In pursuance of the order dated 18.7.2011, the parties were personally present on 11.8.2011. This matter was taken up in Chambers and we had personally interviewed the parties separately. It was adjourned for today to enable the appellant to file an affidavit, and also to enable them to consider the matter over-night with a view to bring about reconciliation. The parties are personally present today also. The respondent personally submits that she is unwilling to go back to her matrimonial home and live with the appellant because of the ill-treatment meted out by the husband to her, and also because he has married another woman in the meanwhile. The appellant has placed on record an affidavit personally sworn by him to that effect. We acknowledge the position that he has married another woman notwithstanding which he is prepared to keep both the wives. In view of the admitted position of the parties, namely, the appellant’s second marriage with another woman while the first marriage with the respondent is still subsisting, there is no use examining the evidence on 3 record and dispose of the matter on merits. The appellant admits bigamy. In that view of the matter, it would be most inappropriate for us to give a direction for restitution of conjugal rights, which is hereby rejected. Before we part, we would like to reiterate the observations made by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, in the impugned order. Paragraph 12 of the same is reproduced hereinbelow: “I have considered evidence of both parties. It has come in evidence that before filing of this present case, earlier Sanjeeta Devi had filed criminal case u/s 498(A) I.P.C. and in that case applicant Ishwardeo Rai was imprisoned. Further a maintenance case was also filed by Sanjeeta Devi in which Rs1000/- per month was allowed as maintenance and it appears that in retaliation of those two cases filed by wife, applicant has filed this present case. While discussing the evidence of O.P. it appears clearly that Sanjeeta Devi has said that applicant has developed illicit relation with another lady and she apprehends danger to life if she return to her sasural. She has clearly deposed that she was beaten up by husband and other members of the family for demand of dowry. These are the reasonable excuse for the wife to withdraw from the society of her husband.” It will, therefore, be open to the respondent to proceed with her pending litigation(s) against the appellant. Furthermore, in view of dismissal of the present appeal the 4 appellant is liable to pay maintenance charges to the respondent as per the impugned judgment. In the result, the appeal is dismissed with the costs quantified at Rs.10,000/-(ten thousand), including the cost on the point of the limitation, which shall be paid to the respondent within a period of four weeks. Vinay/ ( S. K. Katriar, J.) (Ahsanuddin Amanullah,J.)