MANJU ROY Vs. GHANSHYAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the both sides.

(2.) In this revision-petition, the petitioner Manju Roy, has assailed the order dated 12.3.1996 passed by the 2nd Additional District Judge, Saharsa, in Misc. Case No. 7 of 1994 which had been instituted on the basis of an application which opposite party No. 1. had filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 ('the Act') praying for restitution of conjugal right. By the impugned order, the learned Court below had asked the parties to appear before the Court below on 27.3.1996 for reconciliation. There was also specific direction to both the parties to appear personally.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that in this case the petitioner had taken a stand that she is not married to Opposite party No. 1, who had filed the application under Section 9 of the Act; that she is the wife of one Vijay Kumar Roy; and that even prior to the filling of the application under Section 9 of the Act by opposite party No. 1, she had instituted some cases including case for maintenance and criminal case against her husband Vijoy Kumar Roy. According to her, in view of the stand taken by the petitioner and in view of the objection raised by her that she is not the wife of Ghanshyam (Opp. Party No.l), there could be no question of reconciliation and the learned Additional District Judge has committed material irregularity in asking the petitioner by the impugned order to personally appear before that Court for reconciliation.