JASMEET KAUR Vs. PAWAN KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this appeal filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 the appellant seeks to set aside the judgment and decree dated 28.07.2009 passed by the court of Additional District Judge whereby a decree of restitution of conjugal rights was passed in favour of the respondent and against the appellant.

(2.) Brief facts of the case relevant for deciding the present appeal are that the respondent filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights stating therein that the marriage of the appellant and the respondent was solemnized on 26.2.2004 in Laxmi Narain Mandir, Faiz Road, New Delhi where after the couple resided at 10219/43, Bhagat Singh Nagar, Manak Pura, New Delhi. He further states that due to some marital discord, the appellant was taken away from the matrimonial home by her father and despite making efforts she did not return. On the other hand, the factum of marriage itself is disputed by the appellant. However, the respondent filed the petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights and vide judgment dated 28.7.09 the same was decreed in favour of the respondent and against the appellant. Feeling aggrieved with the same, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.

(3.) Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that in fact no proper marriage between the parties has taken place and even the respondent has failed to prove solemnization of the marriage between the parties according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. Counsel also submits that even an FIR has been registered against the respondent under Section 366/420/468/471 IPC and in the said case, charges have already been framed by the Ld. Trial Court against the respondent. Counsel also submits that the respondent did not adduce any evidence to establish the fact that the 'Saptapadi' was performed around the sacred fire at the time of the alleged ceremonies and therefore no marriage between the parties according to Hindu rites and ceremonies took place on the alleged date of 26.02.2004. In support of his argument, counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in Mousumi Chakraborty v. Subrata Guha Roy,1991 MC 74.