RANI DEVI Vs. YOGESH KUMAR AZAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant-appellant, Rani Devi has filed this First Appeal against the judgment and decree date 13.07.2001 passed by Sri Shiva Shankar Sharma, the learned 1st Additional District Judge, Saharsa in Matrimonial Case No.6 of 1996 dismissing the application filed by the appellant under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal right.

(2.) THE appellant filed the aforesaid application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act alleging that the father and brother of the appellant contacted the respondents and negotiated the marriage of the appellant with respondent no.1, Yogesh Kumar Azad. THE respondents accepted the offer and agreed to marry with the appellant. THE respondents saw the appellant, Rani Devi in presence of their relatives and they agreed to marry. THE golden ring along with cloth and cash were given to the appellant by respondent no.2 who is mother of respondent no.1. THE date of marriage was fixed on 12.01.1996 and on the said date, marriage was performed according to Hindu rites. Photos were also taken. However, at the time of feast after marriage, some of the relation of the respondents demanded wine to which the father of the appellant refused. As a result of which, there was altercation of hot words and opposite parties-respondents threatened to face dire consequences. THE respondent no.1 i.e the husband became very angry and demanded scooter, freeze, godrej, colour T.V. and cash of Rs.50,000 as dowry from the father of the appellant which was not fulfilled causing annoyance to the respondents. After intervention of well wishers, the appellant was brought by the respondent to Saharsa on On 16-17th January 1996, the respondent no.1 and his 13.01.1996. brother abused her and did not provide food. THEy started torturing her in relation to demand of dowry. THE respondent no.1 filed a false criminal case against the brother and relation of the appellant in collusion with Railway Police. At Saharsa, she lived with her husband and there was physical relation between them. Subsequently, she was sent back to her parent's house. In spite of repeated request made by her father and other relation to keep the appellant with him, the respondent no.1 did not agree and instead demanded 1 katha land at Saharsa. On these grounds, the appellant prayed for restitution of conjugal rights.

(3.) MR. Jitendra Prasad Singh, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that for a valid marriage, performance of "Saptpadi" is necessary but the appellant has failed to prove the same. The respondent no.1 has adduced overwhelming evidences to prove that he was on duty on 11.01.1996 to 15.01.1996 and, therefore, there was no question of marriage arises on 12.01.1996. The learned Court below has appreciated all the evidences available on record and has rightly found that the appellant has failed to prove the marriage. On these grounds, the learned counsel submitted that the impugned judgment and decree cannot be interfered with.