NIKITA Vs. BALRAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners / defendants against order dtd. 12/7/2025 (Annexure P/7) passed in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal MCA No.10/2025 by the learned II District Judge, Khategaon, District Dewas (MP), whereby the appeal preferred by the Respondent / plaintiff under Order 43 Rule 1 (r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) has been allowed; and the rejection order dtd. 18/3/2025 (Annexure P/6) of the application filed by the Respondent / plaintiff under Order 39 Rules (1) & (2) read with Sec. 151 of the CPC, passed in Regular Civil Suit RCS No.A/06/2025 by the learned 1st Civil Judge, Junior Division, Khategaon, District Dewas (MP) has been quashed.

(2.) The facts leading to filing of this petition are that respondent no.1/plaintiff filed a civil suit seeking permanent injunction restraining the petitioner no.1/defendant from marrying any other person or persuading the petitioner no.1/defendant to marry any other person without obtaining valid divorce from the respondent no.1/plaintiff. In the suit, respondent no.1/plaintiff filed an application under Order 39, Rule 1 & 2 of CPC seeking temporary injunction. The application was opposed by the petitioners/defendants on the ground that no prima facie case existed and the relief sought was final in nature. The Civil Judge, on due consideration of the pleadings, documents and arguments, dismissed the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC, vide order dtd. 18/3/2025. Being aggrieved, with the aforesaid order, the respondent no.1/plaintiff preferred a miscellaneous civil appeal no.10/2025 and by the impugned order dtd. 12/7/2025, the appeal was allowed by setting aside the order dtd. 18/3/2025 and the petitioners/defendants were restrained from marrying or persuading the petitioner no.1/defendant to marry any person other than the respondent no.1/plaintiff without obtaining valid divorce from the respondent no.1/plaintiff.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is contrary to settled legal principles, passed without proper appreciation of pleadings and evidence and causes irreparable prejudice by restraining the petitioners/defendants from exercising their personal liberty. The appellate Court erred in holding that the respondent had a prima facie case despite the fact that the alleged marriage between the respondent and petitioner no.1 is specifically denied and remains unproved. No documentary or oral evidence has been produced to establish such marriage. In support of his contentions counsel placed reliance upon the recent judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dolly Rani vs. Manish Kumar Chanchal reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 754 wherein Hon'ble Apex Court emphasised that for a Hindu marriage to be valid, it must be performed with appropriate rites and ceremonies such as saptapadi (seven steps around the sacred fire) etc.