ABDUL AHAD Vs. SHAH BEGUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal has been filed by the present appellant who was the plaintiff before the trial Court. He filed a suit in the Court of Sub-Judge Poonch in September, 1990 against the present respondents stating therein that the respondent No. 1 was his legally wedded wife. The marriage had been performed five years back. He also submitted that the marriage was entered into the register 'Nikah Khwani'. He also alleged that at the time of marriage he executed an agreement that after the marriage he would reside in the house of respondent No. 2, his mother-in-law along with wife for four years as Khana Damad. He further submitted that he resided there and cohabited with his wife during that period. He submitted that as he had gone to his house, the respondents do not allow his wife, respondent No. 1 to live with him as his wife. Therefore, he sought a decree for restitution of conjugal rights and also for perpetual injunction against the respondents other than respondent No. 1 that they should not interfere in living together of respondent No. 1 and the appellant. He also sought a decree that the respondent No. 1 should not be married either to respondent No. 3 or any other person.

(2.) Respondent No. 1 in her written statement stated that her marriage had been performed with the appellant five years back against her Will and she was a minor studying 8th class at that time. She further submitted that she has never cohabited with him nor she ever lived with him as his wife. The trial Court framed the following issues :1. Whether the Nikah of Shah Begum defendant with plaintiff had been performed forcibly five years ago when she was a minor, studying in 8th class and by winning over her mother against her wishes and without any guardian? OPD2 Whether the plaintiff entered into an agreement to reside in the house of defendant No. 2 along with Shah Begum for four years as Khana Damad? OPD3 Whether the defendants are interfering in the settlement of Mst. Shah Begum withthe plaintiff? OPD4 Relief.

(3.) The trial Court while deciding issue No. 1 came to the following conclusion :