SUMAN SINGH Vs. VINOD KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) EXEMPTIONS allowed, subject to all just exceptions. In view of the averments made in the present applications, the same are allowed and the delay of two days in filing the appeals is condoned. The applications stand disposed of.

(2.) THESE two appeals arise from similar orders dated 24.04.2012 passed by Shri Kamlesh Kumar, Additional Principal Judge (hereinafter referred as APJ), Family Court, Rohini, Delhi in H.M.A. No.856/2010, preferred by the appellant under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 to seek restitution of conjugal rights, and case No.481/10 also preferred by the appellant, being a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. to claim maintenance from the respondent � whom she claims to be her legally wedded husband. The learned APJ has dismissed both these petitions with the finding that the appellant has failed to establish her marriage with the respondent.

(3.) THE Trial Court examined the witnesses of the parties in the two cases. The primary issue which arose for consideration before the Trial Court was whether the appellant was the legally wedded wife of the respondent, and whether he had deserted the appellant. The learned APJ marshalled the evidence of the parties. While examining the aforesaid issue, he notes that the appellant admitted that no receipt was given by the temple authorities for performing the alleged marriage. She admitted that she had not taken any proof of marriage from the Pandit, who performed the marriage. The marriage had not been got registered. She could not tell the name of the Pandit, who solemnized the marriage. PW-2 Smt. Renu James claimed to have attended the marriage, but could not tell the name of any person who was present along with her at the time of the alleged marriage. Though she stated that a photographer was present, she did not have his particulars. She also stated that no document was prepared by the Priest/Pandit in the temple with regard to the marriage. She had not witnessed the execution of any document. PW-3 Shri Shiv Saran Singh, brother of the appellant, testified that except him, none from his family and relatives had attended the alleged marriage. He also testified that photographs had been taken at the time of marriage but did not know as to who has taken the photographs. He could not testify as to why the appellant had not invited her parents to the alleged marriage.