NAMITA MALLIK Vs. NISHANT KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a regular second appeal filed by the appellant against the judgment and decree dated 26.5.2014 passed by the learned Additional District Judge -I (East), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in R.C.A. No.40/2010 titled Namita Malik vs. Nishant Kumar.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that Nishank Kumar filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against Namita Malik, the present appellant and one Rohit Bhdaya seeking declaration that the marriage between Nishant Kumar and Namita Malik, the present appellant was a valid marriage performed according to Hindu rites and ceremonies and that the marriage between the appellant, Namita Malik and Rohit Bhdaya was void and illegal as it was contracted during the subsistence of the first marriage. Further, a decree of permanent injunction was also sought seeking a restraint order against the present appellant and respondent No.2 from living together.

(3.) THE case which was setup by respondent No.1/plaintiff was that while he was studying with the present appellant, he had fallen in love with her and both of them had got married against the wishes of their parents in Gujarat Samaj Mandir, Paschim Vihar on 22.8.2008 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. After marriage, they lived together and consummated the marriage also; however, because of the pressure of the parents, they started living along with their parents. During the period of their separation, the present appellant was married to respondent No.2, Rohit Bhdaya, which culminated into filing of the present suit for declaration and permanent injunction. The appellant/defendant No.1 and respondent No.2, Rohit Bhdaya were served. The appellant was served but she did not file her written statement. Her defence was struck and thereafter, respondent No.1 adduced evidence in support of his case. He examined himself as PW -1 and three more witnesses, one of which was the Purohit, who solemnized the marriage and the other two persons were the witnesses to the marriage. All these four witnesses were crossexamined and after analysis of evidence, the learned trial court granted declaration as prayed for by respondent No.1 declaring the marriage between the present appellant and respondent No.1 as a valid marriage and also declaring the marriage between the appellant and respondent No.2, Rohit Bhdaya as null and void as the same was contracted during the subsistence of the first marriage. However, so far as the grant of injunction is concerned, that relief was refused. It was observed that it is not proper for the court to pass such kind of injunction orders and the respondent No.1 has an efficacious remedy available to him to seek restitution of conjugal rights.