RITU KUMARI Vs. SURENDRA KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner -opponent under Sec. 115 of C.P.C. challenging the order dt. 16.01.2009 passed by the District Judge Jhunjhunu (hereinafter referred to as "the trial Court") in misc. civil case (H.M.A.) No. 190/2006, whereby the trial Court has dismissed the application of the petitioner filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. In the instant case it appears that the respondent -applicant had filed an application being No. 190/06 before the trial Court under Sec. 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking restitution of conjugal rights against the petitioner -opponent, alleging inter alia that his marriage had taken place with the petitioner -Ritu Kumari on 04.01.2006. In the said case, the present petitioner had submitted an application under Order VII Rule 11 seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that since no marriage had taken place between the parties, no cause of action had arisen to file the case against the petitioner. The said application has been rejected by the trial Court vide the impugned order dt. 16.01.2009.

(2.) IT is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the plaint was liable to be rejected at the threshold as the petitioner had not married the respondent and hence no cause of action had arisen to file the case against the petitioner under Sec. 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Learned counsel however fairly submitted that the case is being proceeded further before the trial Court and the evidence is also being recorded in the same. At the outset it is required to be noted that the revision petition is pending before this Court since last more than 3 years without any substantive progress. Since there was no interim stay order passed by this Court, the trial Court is proceeding further with the misc. case filed by the respondent -applicant Under the circumstances, the revision petition as such has become infructuous. Nonetheless so far as the merits of the case are concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out as to how the order passed by the trial Court suffers from any illegality or perversity. As rightly observed by the trial Court the question whether the petitioner had married the respondent or not would be a matter of evidence, and therefore it could not be said that no cause of action had arisen for the respondent to file the application under Sec. 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The revision petition being devoid of merit deserves to be dismissed and it is accordingly dismissed. However, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible.