In cases of marriage between members of different religions, the court is required to decide the case according to justice, equity, and good conscience, and the personal law of any party would not be applicable.

T.P. Sharma, J.

1. F.A. (M) Nos. 47/2008 & 128/2008 arising out of the common judgment and decree dated 6-2-2008 passed by the 2nd Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg (for short 'the Family Court) in Civil Suit Nos. 157A/2007 & 158A/2007 are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. Vide F.A. (M) No. 128/2008, the appellant has challenged legality and propriety of the judgment and decree dated 6-2-2008 passed by the Family Court in Civil Suit No. 157A/2007 whereby the petition for restitution of conjugal rights filed by the appellant has been dismissed.

3. Vide F.A. (M) No. 47/2008, the appellant has challenged legality and propriety of the judgment and decree dated 6-2-2008 passed by the Family Court in Civil Suit No. 158A/2007 whereby the Family Court has decreed the suit, filed by the respondent against the appellant, for declaration of marriage void.

4. The appellant has challenged legality and propriety of the judgment and decree on the ground that the parties are Muslim legally wedded spouses, the Family Court was not having jurisdiction to entertain suit for declaration of marriage to be void under the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The Family Court has also erred in holding that, marriage has not been solemnized between the parties.

5. Brief facts necessary for the disposal of these appeals, as per pleadings of the parties in Civil Suit No. 158A/2007, are that the respondent is a Hindu woman and never converted into Islam. The appellant is a member of Islam. The respondent was working as Shiksha Karmi at Village Badepurda and she used to travel from Durg to Litia Chowk by mini bus of Zia Travels. The appellant was working as Checker in Zia Travels. During the course of travel, they came in contact. On 3-8-2006 while the respondent was travelling in the mini bus of Zia Travels, the appellant provided one chocolate of Dairy Milk to the respondent which she accepted and ate, and she became unconscious. In the evening the respondent came back to her house. She used to travel by the same bus till 20-11-2006. On 22-11-2006, the appellant for the firs time told the respondent that he has married her on 3-8-2006 at madarsa situate at Gandai and also showed the certificate relating to nikah. The appellant threatened her and compelled her for registration of marriage at Durg. He also showed photographs. Under duress, the respondent went with the appellant to the Office of Collector, Durg where 3-4 other persons were present. The appellant took signatures of the respondent on some papers and detained her till 3 p.m. The appellant also took some photographs of the respondent. On 22-11-2006, with a view to avoid to go to the Collectorate, Durg, the respondent went to Dhamdha to attend strike, but the appellant reached there at 2 p.m. by motorcycle and forcefully took her to the Marriage Officer at Durg who issued certificate of marriage. The respondent was under duress. Lastly, on 23-11-2006, she narrated the entire incident to her parents. She claims that she never converted into Islam and never consented for marriage with the appellant. The alleged marriage between the parties is void ab initio and the marriage certificate issued by the Marriage Officer is also void. On the aforesaid ground, suit for declaration of marriage and marriage certificate void was filed by the respondent under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 read with Sections 11 and 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

6. The appellant has denied the allegations made in the plaint and has specifically alleged that the respondent used to travel by Zia Travels and during the course of travel, the appellant and the respondent came in contact during which period their relation developed. The respondent used to send SMS and talk with the appellant from her mobile phone No. 98279-20460 on his mobile phone Nos. 93028-36432 & 94255-64469. On 3-8-2006, the respondent herself came to the appellant near Kachehri Chowk and she herself wilfu