The main legal point established in the judgment is the invalidity of a marriage between a Hindu girl and a Muslim boy before Arya Samaj Mandir due to the respondent not being converted from Muslim religion to Hinduism and the inapplicability of Hindu rites.

Manmohan Singh, J.

1. By way of the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed order dated 7th August, 2012 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge whereby the application of the petitioner under Order 15 and Order 20 CPC was dismissed.

2. The petitioner aged about 24 ½ years, daughter of Radhey Kishan, Hindu by religion and Gupta by caste and educated upto M.A. She was earlier resident of House No.705/1, Ward No.III, Mehrauli, New Delhi, whereas, the respondent, Muslim by religion and illiterate, is a tailor by profession and was stitching clothes for petitioner and members of her family and had been visiting their house for tailoring jobs.

3. As per the petitioner, on 18th January, 2007, the respondent hatched a conspiracy to forcibly marry the petitioner. In furtherance of said conspiracy, he leisured the petitioner to accompany him to his shop to take trial of her dress as he had stitched clothes for her in an ultra modern fashion and trial thereof was essential. The petitioner accompanied him to his shop and from his shop, he took her to Arya Samaj Temple at Shankar Nagar, Nabi Karim, New Delhi-110055 for solemnization of marriage. The respondent caused entry in records whereby registering fact of solemnization of marriage between the parties was confirmed by issuing certificate No.273 dated 18th January, 2007.

4. In March, 2007, the petitioner filed suit for declaring the marriage as illegal on the grounds that the petitioner never consented, that as per Hindu Law for performing marriage as per Hindu rites in Mandir both spouses were mandatorily required to be Hindu, that the alleged conversion for performing marriage is no conversion and that the marriage certificate be declared as illegal and ordered to be cancelled. The respondent was served with summons of said suit as Mohd. Kaleem. He received summons and entered appearance and filed written statement. In the written statement, he stated his conversion into Hinduism and his change of his name at the time of marriage.

5. On 31st May, 2007, issues were framed by the trial Court. During the pendency of the above suit, the respondent filed petition under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking restitution of conjugal rights. In opposition to this petition, the petitioner stated that there was no relationship of husband and wife thus, alleged marriage was illegal. The petitioner also stated that the provisions of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 were not applicable, no power and jurisdiction can be exercised by this court. The petition was dismissed by judgment and decree dated 2nd April, 2011 passed by ADJ on the ground that there was no valid marriage between the parties because respondent is not converted from Muslim religion to Hinduism and that there could be no valid marriage between Hindu girl and Muslim boy before Arya Samaj Mandir in accordance to Hindu rites. The order was appealed of by the respondent before this Court and judgment and decree was upheld on 26th September, 2011.

6. During the pendency of the civil suit, petitioner moved an application under Section 151 CPC making a prayer before court to grant decree in favour of petitioner and against respondent declaring the marriage as illegal. The application was decided on 1st February, 2012 whereby holding that suit of plaintiff is barred by resjudicata and accordingly was void and dismissed.

7. The petitioner moved an application seeking review and correction of orders dated 1st February, 2012 which was dismissed vide orders dated 3rd May, 2012. The petitioner moved another application that once the issues has been framed then the court shall pronounce the judgment on all issues which was dismissed vide order dated 7th August, 2012 wherein it was observed that the suit is barred by res-judicata and the court did not find any necessity to decide the issue as the issue under controversy was already decided by the Court of competent jurisdiction.

8. Aggri