JUDGMENT

L.K. MISHRA, J. — This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 21.02.2004 passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Rourkela in Civil Proceeding No.188 of 2000 and the decree sealed and signed on 08.03.2004 by which he dismissed the suit filed by the present appellant.

2. The case of the appellant in the Court below was that she and respondent Santosh Kumar Singh were co-workers and were known to each other. As their intimacy developed, they fell in love and ultimately the respondent proposed to marry the appellant. The appellant agreed to such proposal and on 21.03.1999 marriage between them was solemnized at Dumerta Kali temple at Bondamunda with observance of all rituals and ceremo¬nies as befitting a Hindu Marriage in presence of G. Naidu and the father of the appellant. Soon thereafter both the parties consummated their marriage in the quarter of the respondent at Bondamunda but on the next day the appellant was sent to her parent’s house by the respondent who promised to take her back after some days after obtaining the consent of his parents since they were not aware of such marriage. However, the respondent never turned up to take her back. The father of the appellant went to the house of the respondent in September, 2000 but the re¬spondent declined to take her back. The appellant also made a request to the respondent to which he refused and told that he was going to marry the daughter of one Kamal Prasad Singh and ultimately the respondent denied to take her back. Therefore, the appellant filed a suit seeking a declaration as the legally wedded wife of the respondent. Initially one Ritu Singh was ar¬rayed as a party and injunction was sought against respondent Nos.1 and 2 not to marry each other. However, later, Ritu Singh was deleted from the record. The respondent filed a written statement denying the case of the appellant. He pleaded that he had never married the appellant at any point of time and had no relationship with her. Initially he took a plea that he was a married person his marriage having taken place much prior to 21.03.1999. Later he amended the written statements claiming that he had married one Sobha Singh, daughter of Ramsinhasan Sharma, the said marriage having taken place at village Kurre in Jahana¬bad district in the State of Bihar on 24.02.1999. He took the plea that his marriage with Sobha Singh being earlier in point of time, marriage with the appellant, if at all, being a second marriage is void in the eye of law.

3. Learned Trial Court after taking the evidence vide judgment dated 07.10.2002 decreed the suit declaring the status of the appellant as the married wife of the respondent. This judgment was challenged before this Court and suffered a remand. The learned Trial Court was directed to take further evidence and to decide the case afresh. Consequently after remand, some more witnesses were examined on behalf of the appellant. However, no further evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondent. This time the learned trial Court dismissed the suit giving a finding that no marriage took place between the appellant and the re¬spondent. However, he did not record any finding with regard to the alleged marriage between the respondent and Sobha Singh.

4. The appellant appeared in person and advanced her arguments herself upon each and every aspect of the case. She took us through the evidence, both oral and documentary. According to her, the finding of the learned Court below is not sustainable since it is based on frivolous considerations which are not sustainable in the eye of law. Her claim is that she has been able to prove the factum of her marriage with the respondent on the evidence adduced and the respondent has failed to prove his marriage with Sobha Singh. Thereafter, the appellant has prayed to set aside the judgment and decree.

5. Learned advocate for the respondent on the other hand has vehemently supported the impugned judgment. According to him, the appellant has f