RAMESH KUMAR DATTA, J.:–Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent.

2. The appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 5.9.2011 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Darbhanga in Matrimonial Case No. 154 of 2008 by which he has dismissed the Matrimonial case under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal right filed by the appellant on contest.

3. The appellant had filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act (in short, ‘the Act’), alleging that his marriage ceremony with the respondent was solemnized with customary rites and ceremony on 27.11.2005 at the parents’ house of the respondent at Mohalla-87, Gangasagar Allalpati, P.S. Laheriasarai. After the marriage the parties lived together as husband and wife. The marriage was consummated by cohabitation. It is stated that the applicant-appellant and the respondent are both Hindus though belonging to different castes and they met and fell in love and irrespective of being of different castes they decided to marry which has resulted in the aforesaid marriage ceremony. Thereafter they decided to get the marriage registered and applied for registration before the Marriage Officer, Darbhanga and after the process was adopted the parties were directed to appear and they did appear along with three witnesses on 8.2.2006 and both the applicant and the respondent accepted the said marriage before the Marriage Officer in the presence of the witnesses and upon being satisfied the Marriage Officer issued certificate of marriage dated 8.2.2006. It was the further stand that the parties continued to lead conjugal life till July 2008 and in the 1st week of August, 2008 the respondent went to her parents’ house. However, when the appellant went to his Sasural on 29.8.2008 to meet his wife, the father-in-law and some other relatives present there became furious by stating that the caste men including the relations were opposing the inter-caste marriage and under threat to life he was directed to write on a stamp paper as per their dictation, which he did and thereafter the appellant was driven out from his sasural without being allowed to meet his wife. The appellant did not take any legal action on account of such conduct due to the assurance given by the respondent that she was still ready to live with him and forbade him from taking any action. However, all efforts of the applicant to bring the respondent to the matrimonial home failed, upon which the application under Section 9 of the Act was filed.

4. The respondent appeared upon notice and filed the written statement by way of objection taking the plea that the case has been filed with vexatious, malicious and dishonest intentions for maligning and defaming the prestige of the respondent and high reputation of her in-laws and the parents and for extorting money from them as the respondent had or has no concern with the applicant. It was further asserted that the respondent is the daughter of a reputed Doctor and her mother is also Principal and Director of Jesus and Mary School, Darbhanga and further that the respondent is married with Dr.Rajnish, son of Mrs. Veena Singh and Ramashankar Singh, the Joint Commissioner, Commercial Taxes on 24th November, 2008 and is leading happy conjugal life with her husband. It was also asserted that the statement regarding her marriage made in the application was totally false and at the relevant time she was living with her parents and a regular student of final year MBBS and never married or even knew the applicant. It was also asserted that from a reading of paragraphs 1, 3 and 4 of the Matrimonial case it is apparent that no ceremonies like Saptapadi and Kanyadan were performed in the alleged marriage dated 27.11.2005 and thus such marriage cannot be said to have been solemnized in accordance with the provisions of Section 7 of the Hindu marriage Act, 1955. It was further asserted that the applicant sent forg

Click Here to Read the rest of this document