VIRENDRAKUMAR GULABCHAND RUNWAL Vs. PREETA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal preferred by the husband against whom Hindu Marriage Petition (H.M.P.) No. 79 of 2001 was filed by respondent wife Preeta for restitution of conjugal rights. The appellant husband filed Regular Civil Suit (R.C.S.) No. 57 of 2004 for declaration that marriage between parties is null and void and for perpetual injunction restraining present respondent Preeta Virendrakumar Runwal from claiming to be wife of the present appellant. Originally the proceedings for annulment of marriage were filed at the Family Court, Bijapur. By the order of the Supreme Court said proceeding registered as suit was transferred from the Family Court, Bijapur to the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Parbhani and the proceedings was renumbered as R.C.S. No. 57 of 2004 filed by husband-appellant. Both H.M.P. No. 79 of 2001 filed by wife for restitution of conjugal rights and R.C.S. No. 57 of 2004 for declaration that marriage is null and void and injunction were heard together and decided by the common judgment by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Parbhani on 25.11.2005.

(2.) As against the common judgment and decrees passed in said two proceedings, the wife filed common appeal bearing Regular Civil Appeal No. 120 of 2005 which came to be decided by the Principal District Judge, Parbhani on 3.1.2008. In para 6 of the judgment the learned Judge has referred to necessity of filing two separate appeals against decisions in two separate proceedings, namely, H.M.P. No. 79 of 2001 and R.C.S. No. 57 of 2004. He observed that the appeal suffers from irregularity and he gave directions regarding recovery of Court fee in appeal against the decree in R.C.S. No. 57 of 2004 from the appellant. The trial Court allowed R.C.S. No. 57 of 2004 and gave declaration that the marriage between Virendrakumar and Preeta was null and void and he also granted perpetual injunction restraining Preeta from claiming herself to be wife of Virendrakumar. He dismissed H.M.P. No. 79 of 2001 filed for restitution of conjugal rights. The learned Principal District Judge, Parbhani while deciding the common appeal bearing Regular Civil Appeal No. 120 of 2005 on 3.1.2008 allowed the appeal and set aside the decree passed in R.C.S. No. 57 of 2004 and dismissed it and allowed H.M.P. No. 79 of 2001 for restitution of conjugal rights. It is this judgment and decree which is challenged in this Second Appeal.

(3.) Heard Mrs. Netrali N. Gangwal (Jain), Advocate for the appellant husband and Mr. P.N. Sonpethkar, Advocate for the respondent wife.