1 10110 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO. 101 OF 2010 Sunita Suresh Kolamkar ...Appellant V/s. Suresh Kashinath Kolamkar ...Respondent Mr. Yogendra Kanchan for the Appellant Mr. Sujit More for the Respondent CORAM: A.M. KHANWILKAR AND R.Y. GANOO, JJ. DATE: 8TH JUNE, 2011 P.C.:- Heard the counsel for the parties. 2. Perused the evidence produced by the appellant in support of her plea that she was legally wedded wife of the respondent, and for which, she was entitled for decree of restitution on the assertion that the respondent has deserted her since 2003. Even if the entire evidence produced by the appellant were to be accepted as it is, there is not even remote material to suggest, much less prove, the factum of performance 2 10110 of Saptapadi, which is the quintessence to establish the factum of lawful marriage of a Hindu couple. The trial Court has analysed the entire evidence and the trial Court has rightly held that the evidence produced by the appellant fell short of establishing the factum of marriage. The evidence in the form of two witnesses examined by the appellant, at best, suggests that they had seen the appellant and respondent staying together, but the same witnesses have admitted in their examination-in- chief that they do not know the relationship between the two. 2. Taking any view of the matter, therefore, the appeal is devoid of merits. There is no infirmity in the ultimate conclusion reached by the trial Court in dismissing the petition for decree of restitution as filed by the appellant. Unless the factum of marriage were to be proved by the appellant, the question of considering the said relief would not arise in law. 3. Hence, this appeal fails. The same is dismissed. R.Y. GANOO, J. A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.