MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, J.

1. This appeal is directed against impugned judgment dated 26.4.2017 passed by Family Court Baikunthpur, District Koriya in Civil Suit No.10- A/2014, by which, the appellant’s/plaintiff suit has been dismissed.

2. Appellant/plaintiff filed a suit seeking a decree of restitution of conjugal rights on the pleadings inter alia that marriage between the parties was performed on 24.03.2012 in Aarya Samaj Mandir, Harit Vihar Delhi according to vaidik rituals and after marriage the plaintiff and defendant both were residing at Junapara, Baikunthpur in a rented accommodation discharging their marital obligations. The Plaintiff’s case was that the marriage of the plaintiff with defendant was not acceptable to the defendant’s parents and they provoked the defendant to desert the appellant. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff conceived twice but defendant got the pregnancy aborted. After defendant got employment in C.G. Vidyut Mandal, Korba in 2013, his father pressurised and provoked him to disown marriage. Plaintiff was threatened to sign on blank papers which the plaintiff refused. Though, she continued to reside in Junapara house, the respondent deserted her company, therefore, suit for restitution of conjugal rights was filed.

3. The Defendant, in his written statement, completely denied the very existence of marital relationship by stating that no marriage was ever solemnized between the plaintiff and the defendant. It was pleaded that the plaintiff is a divorcee having three children and her marriage has been dissolved on 18.10.2011. The Plaintiff was next door neighbour of defendant’s father and during the course of her dispute with her first husband, defendant’s father had acted as mediator but taking undue advantage of compassion and help, the defendant has come out with a false case of marriage.

4. On the basis of the pleadings, learned trial Court framed following issues:

(i) Whether the plaintiff is the wife of the defendant ?

(ii) Whether the defendant deserted his wife without any reasonable cause ?

5. The learned trial Court held that the plaintiff has failed to prove that there was marriage solemnized in accordance with the rites and rituals of performance of marriage between the parties, who are governed by Hindu Law and therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled of any decree of restitution of conjugal rights.

6. Assailing correctness and validity of impugned judgment and decree, learned counsel for the appellant argues that the plaintiff has not only specifically pleaded solemnization of marriage on 24.03.2012 but also led cogent, reliable oral evidence of the witnesses of marriage namely- Ganesh Chandravanshi (PW-1) and Shekhar Chandra (PW-2). They emphatically deposed before the trial Court that in their presence, marriage was solemnized and they also countersigned the certificate of marriage vide Ex. P/1. Learned counsel for the appellant further argues that the plaintiff herself appeared as witness PW-3 and has categorically stated regarding solemnisation of her marriage. The certificate of marriage, affidavit, application and various other documents relied upon by the plaintiff and the witnesses namely Ganesh Chandravanshi (PW1), Shekhar Chandra (PW2) and Kanchan Gupta (PW-3) (Plaintiff herself) have fully established the plaintiff’s case. The factum of marriage having been proved, a presumption was required to be drawn with regard to validity of marriage and in the absence of there being any evidence to prove that the marriage was in violation of the conditions under Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the learned trial Court ought to have held that marriage was validly performed between the parties and therefore, plaintiff is entitled to seek restitution of conjugal rights.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent argues that the plaintiff’s case of there being a marriage between the parties is a false and fabricated story. The defendant never married the pla