IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.30 of 2010 SHEO KUMAR SINGH S/O SRI LALAN SINGH R/O PIRO BEHIND ASHOK CINEMA, BEHEA ROAD, P.S. & P.O. PIRO, DIST.BHOJPUR………………………………………APPLICANT-APPELLANT. Versus SMT. KAMIAWATI DEVI W/O SHEO KUMAR SINGH D/O RAM BACHAN SINGH, R/O MOUZA LAHARABAD, P.O. LAHARABAD. P.S.PIRO, DIST- BHOJPUR………………………….RESPONDENT…….…………..RESPONDEN ----------- 7. 22-Mar-2010 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the judgment of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhojpur, Ara dated 14th of February, 2008 whereby Matrimonial Case No. 52 of 2003/ 86 of 2005 filed by the appellant(petitioner) has been dismissed and his prayer for restitution of conjugal rights and in alternative for a decree of divorce has been rejected. 2. On a careful consideration of the case of the appellant-husband and his wife-respondent, we find it fully considered in the judgment under appeal and it is clear that after about 22 years of the marriage, only because the respondent could not bear a child, she has been ill-treated and turned out of the house and the appellant, according to respondent has married one Kiran Kumari. 3. Besides oral evidence, a number of documentary evidence have also been considered by the 2 learned Family Court. Paragraph-17 refers to the documents filed on behalf of the respondent-wife which include Exhibit-‘G’ and Exhibit-‘H’. We have perused those documents. Exhibit-‘H’ is a proforma receipt filled up by someone who has not signed on the receipt but it shows that on 10.6.2002 the appellant was married with Kiran Kumari, daughter of one Sarabjeet Singh whose address is also mentioned in Exhibit-‘G’. 4. Exhibit-‘H’ is a confidential letter dated 22nd July, 2003 issued under the signature of District Magistrate, Bhojpur, Ara which shows that on a complaint made by the respondent-wife that the appellant has married one Kiran Kumari during her life-time, the District Magistrate got the allegation enquired by one Executive Magistrate, Sadar, Ara who in course of the enquiry met the Manager and the priest of the temple at Bihia who, in writing, have confirmed the allegation by the respondent- wife regarding 2nd marriage of the appellant. 5. In view of such enquiry, by Exhibit-‘H’ the appellant was given a notice to show-cause because at that time the appellant was working in Bhojpur Collectorate 3 as a Financial Statistical Supervisor at Udwantnagar. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that evidence on the side of the appellant was more reliable and Exhibit-‘G’ should not have been given any weightage because it does not bear signature of any authority of the temple. In respect of Exhibit-‘H’, it has been submitted that in response to the said show-cause notice, the appellant filed his show-cause denying the allegation and the matter has remained pending. 7. The discussions made by the learned Family Court further show that criminal case was filed against the appellant for various offences including under Section 494 IPC in which charge-sheet has already been submitted. It was after the filing of the criminal case, the present Matrimonial Suit was lodged by the respondent. There is an explanation by the respondent-wife that on 10.6.2002 the appellant could marry without her knowledge because that was the date fixed for the marriage of her younger sister and for that she had gone to her matrimonial house. Invitation card of that marriage has been exhibited as Exhibit-‘E’. 4 8. We are aware that the respondent is yet to face the trial under Section 494 and other Sections of the IPC for which charge-sheet has been submitted but that alone cannot stand in our way in examining the merits of the judgment and order under appeal. Having given anxious consideration to all the facts and circumstances, we find that the learned Family Court has committed no mistake in rejecting prayer of the appellant for restitution of conjugal rights or for divorce. No sufficient ground has been shown to exist for grant of such relief to the appellant. 9. We find no merit in this appeal, it is accordingly dismissed summarily. 10. Let the lower court records be returned forthwith. perwez (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (C. M. Prasad, J. )