R.K.RASTOGI,J. - (1.) THIS is an appeal against judgment and decree dated 5 -10 -1998 passed by Sri Chandrabhan, Judge Family Court, Meerut in matrimonial Suit No. 495 of 1996, Jitendra alias Deshpal v. Smt. Surekha and Anr., decreeing the suit for restitution of conjugal rights.
(2.) THE facts giving rise to this appeal are that the Plaintiff -respondent filed the aforesaid suit against the defendants -appellants under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act with these allegations that the marriage of respondent Jitendra alias Deshpal had taken place with defendant appellant No. 1 Surekha on 17 -6 -1995 according to Hindu religion in presence of a large number of persons. Photographs of the marriage ceremony were also taken. Thereafter Smt. Surekha went to the plaintiffs house at village Sarurpur Kalan and resided with him for three to four days, thereafter she went back to her parents' house when her brother came for her Vida. There after she did not come to the plaintiff's house inspite of his repeated efforts and she had deserted the plaintiff without any reasonable and lawful excuse. She had also taken with her the ornaments which were given to her by the plaintiff. Then the plaintiff had suspicion that her parents might have forcibly detained her and might have been forcing her to lead adulterous life with Gulvir, defendant No. 2. Then he moved an application before the Sub -Divisional Magistrate, Baghpat and got Surekha summoned through police. Smt. Surekha appeared and denied her marriage with the plaintiff, Jitendra. Her brothers, uncles and maternal grand mother also gave the same statement. Then the authorities instead of giving her in the custody of the plaintiff, sent her back to her parents' house. Then the plaintiff filed this suit for restitution of conjugal rights. The defendant appellants No. 1 and 2 filed a joint written statement in which they denied the allegation of marriage of Surekha with the plaintiff Jitendra. It was further stated that photographs filed by the plaintiff are false and fictitious. No ornaments were given by the plaintiff to Surekha. Actually the marriage of Surekha had taken place with Gulvir, defendant No. 2 and both of them are residing as husband and wife. Since no marriage had taken place between Jitendra and Surekha, Jitendra was not entitled to the decree of restitution of conjugal rights and his suit was liable to be dismissed.
(3.) FOLLOWING issues were framed by the Judge, Family Court in the aforesaid suit: (1) Whether the defendant No. 1 is legally wedded wife of the plaintiff and whether she had deserted the plaintiff without any lawful excuse? (2) Relief? ;