SIRI KISHAN Vs. KANTA
LAWS(DLH)-1983-2-3
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Decided on February 16,1983

KISHAN Appellant
VERSUS
KANTA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

N.N. Goswamy, J. - (1.)This appeal by the husband is directed against the judgment and decree dated January 30, 1982 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi, whereby his petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights was dismissed on the ground that there was no valid marriage between the parties.
(2.). The appellant filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act against the respondent and also impleaded her father as a co-respondent. It is alleged in the petition that the marriage between the parties was solemnised on 2-9-1979 at Dilhi in accordance with the Hindu rites. The father of the res Rpondent did not approve of this marriage being an inter-caste marriage and got falsely registered a case in Police Station Bahdadur Garh against the appellant under Section 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code. It is alleged that the marriage was performed without any coercion or undue influence by Pandit Daya Ram Snarina of Durga Mindir, New Moti Nagar, New Delhi according to the complete Hindu rites and rituals. After the marriage, the parties cohabited as husband and wife at Delhi in the house of the appellant. When they came to know about the registration of the case, they surrendered themselves before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtak. The respondent, who is a major, categorically stated before the Illaqa Magistrate on 11-9-1979 that she was legally wedded wife of the appellant and wanted to live with him, but as there was apprehension of breach of peace, she prayed that she may be sent to Nari Niketan, Delhi. However, the Illaqa Magistrate gave her custody to her father. The aellant and the members of his family have several times requested the father of the respondent to send her back to the appellant but he is adamant and is not willing to sent the respondent to the appellant. The father of the respondent is detaining her much against her wishes and is not allowing her to join the appellant.
(3.). The petition was contested by the respondent. Two written statements were filed, one by the respondent No. I and the orders respondent No. 2 as guardian and next friend of respondent No. 1. In the written statements, it is pleaded that no valid marriage was solemnised between the parties and that the appellant had no cause of action and the petition merits dismissal on that short ground. It is further pleaded that at the relevant time the respondent was minor as her date of birth is 4-10-1962 and the alleged marriage is of 2-9-1979. The factum of marriage has also been disputed and it has been pleaded that no marriage as alleged was ever performed between the parties and as such, the question of approval or disapproval did not arise. It is further pleaded that the parties never co-habited as husband and wife at Delhi and the statement to that effect is false and vague. According to the averments made in the written statement, the respondent was concealed at different places for illicit purposes with the aid of associates of the appelnt.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.