REEMANA KAUSHIK Vs. SHOBHIT KAUSHIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FCA No. 149 of 2013 is filed against the order, dated 10.7.2012 passed by the Family Court-cum-V Additional District & Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam in IA No. 1871 of 2011 in F.C.O.P. No. 532 of 2011. The consequential order passed by the trial Court rejecting the F.C.O.P. is challenged in FCA (Sr.) No. 8146 of 2013. The appellant is the wife of the respondent. She filed the F.C.O.P. under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act (for short 'the Act') against the respondent for the relief of restitution of conjugal rights. It was pleaded that the marriage between the appellant and the respondent took place on 16.4,2006 in a non-ceremonial function in an apartment at Kirlamoudi Layout, Visakhapatnam and that both of them have exchanged garlands in a party arranged at Chrome Pub and Restaurant with the participation of friends and family members. After narrating the developments that have taken place ever since their marriage and the nature of misunderstandings between them, the appellant pleaded that the respondent denied her the matrimonial company, without any valid basis or justification. Accordingly, she prayed for a decree of restitution of conjugal rights.

(2.) The respondent filed IA No. 1871 of 2011 under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. with a prayer to reject the O.P. itself. He pleaded that even according to the description in the O.P., the appellant is a Muslim and it was not even mentioned that she has been converted into Hinduism at any point of time. He further stated that the appellant cannot invoke the provisions of the Act The trial Court allowed the I.A. through its order, dated 10.7.2012 and thereby, the O.P. itself came to be rejected.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the trial Court was not justified in rejecting the O.P. when seriously disputed questions of fact are involved. He contends that the appellant got herself converted into Hinduism and the marriage was performed strictly in accordance with the customs of Hinduism. He submits that even if the respondent has denied the manner, in which the marriage was performed, it is ultimately to be decided after trial and the rejection of the O.P. was not at all justified.