Dr. Anshuman, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the appellant and learned Counsel for the respondents.

2. The present appeal has been filed under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (66 of 1984) for setting aside the judgment and decree dated 29.09.2022 and 14.10.2022 respectively, passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Begusarai, in Matrimonial Case No.176 of 2010 (Registration No.1148 of 2013), by which the above mentioned matrimonial case filed by respondent 1st Set has been decreed by allowing the marriage between Opposite Party No.1/appellant and Opposite Party No.2/respondent 2nd Set has been declared as null and void.

3. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the present appeal has been preferred by Opposite Party No.1/appellant on the ground that the Principal Judge, Family Court, Begusarai, has failed to appreciate the evidence of PW 3, the father of respondent 1st Set, who has deposed orally in favour of the present appellant and further on the ground that the Principal Judge, Family Court, without considering the provisions laid down under Sections 11 and 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (Act No.25 of 1955) as well as materials available on record, particularly ignoring Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, passed the impugned judgment and decree in favour of the applicant/respondent 1st Set in gross violation of law, according to which the present matrimonial suit is barred.

4. Learned Counsel for respondent No.1 has received service of notice of appeal through her father, in this regard the appellant has filed a petition of jointness, which was accepted by the Court. In result, valid service takes place against respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 has appeared through Vakalatnama and thereafter this case was fixed for hearing under Order 41 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) vide order dated 07.11.2025. Argument has been completed on 25.11.2025.

5. Learned Counsel for respondent No.2 is also in support of appellant and submits that the present appeal is maintainable and fit to be allowed and is completely barred under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act as the applicant/respondent No.1 has not demanded any relief relating to restoration of conjugal right and once the relief, which ought to be made is not made, the applicant is not entitled to get any relief and suit is barred according to Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act.

6. For the purpose of deciding this matrimonial case, the Trial Court has formulated in all four issues, which reads as under:—

(i) The first issue is that whether the matrimonial case as framed is maintainable?

The said issue has been decided in favour of the applicant/respondent No.1 and against Opposite Party No.1/appellant.

(ii) The second issue is that whether the marriage of applicant/ respondent No.1 solemnized with Opposite Party No.1/appellant on 29.06.2001 at village Lakho, P.S. Muffasil, District-Begusarai is maintainable?

The second issue has also decided and the Family Court has held that marriage was solemnized between the applicant/respondent No.1 with Opposite Party No.1/appellant on 29.06.01 at village Lakho, P.S. Miffasil, District- Begusarai.

(iii) The third issue is that whether Opposite Party No.1/appellant has entered into another marriage after his marriage with Mamta Bharti, which is in gross violation of Section 5(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act?

This third issue has also been decided in favour of the applicant/respondent No.1 and against Opposite Party No.1/appellant.

(iv) The fourth issue is that whether applicant/respondent No.1 is entitled for any other relief or not?

The said issue has also been decided in favour of the applicant/respondent No.1 and it has been held by the Court that the applicant/respondent No.1 is entitled for the relief available under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

7. For the purpose of deciding this appeal, the two grounds which has been raised by the Counsel for the appellant in the present appeal is that (i