The main legal point established in the judgment is that for a valid Hindu marriage, there must be proof of the essential ceremonies, including the Saptapadi ceremony, and no presumption can be drawn that these ceremonies were performed.

S.S.Saron, J.

1. This is the husbands first appeal against the order dated 15.2.1997 passed by the learned District Judge, Jind, whereby his petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act), for restitution of conjugal rights has been dismissed.

2. The appellant filed a petition under Section 9 of the Act for restitution of conjugal rights by stating that the marriage between the parties was solemnised at Jalalabad City, District Ferozepur on 8.1.1994 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies by way of "Sa-patpadi" and thus he claims that the respondent is his legally wedded wife. It is further stated that after the marriage the parties lived as husband and wife and consummated the marriage at Jalalabad, as well as at Narwana, District Jind, to which place the respondent-wife belongs. It is stated that the parties fell in love and being above the age of 18 years, they got married. However the parents of the respondents were against this marriage and they made every effort to break this marriage. The appellant and his family members are implicated in a criminal case. However, they were acquitted. While the respondent was staying with the appellant at the matrimonial home, about two months earlier to the filing of the petition, her father took her to her parental home on the pretext that her mother wanted to see her. The appellant allowed her to go and since then she has not rejoined his company. The appellant made various efforts to bring the respondent back to rejoin him but she refused. It is in these circumstances that the present petition was filed.

3. Notice was issued in the case and the respondent put in appearance before the learned District Judge. She filed her written statement in which she denied the factum of marriage being solemnised between the parties. It was also stated that the appellant had no cause of action or locus standi to file the petition. It was further stated that the appellant was estopped by his act and conduct to file the petition because he had solemnly affirmed on oath by executing an affidavit dated 30.9.1994 at Jind to the effect that the respondent was never married with him. It was stated that the appellant had filed this false and vexatious petition knowingly and intentionally just to defame, harass and also to burden the respondent with unnecessary costs of litigation. It was stated that the respondent was still unmarried and was residing at Narwana with her parents and she never lived with the appellant as his wife and never consummated the marriage or cohabited with him at Jalalabad or at Narwana. In fact, the appellant studied with the respondent as a class-mate in a Collage at Narwana in the year 1992-93 and as such both were having friendly intimacy with each other being class-mates. The parents of the respondent had engaged her with one Sanjay Jain in 1993 and their marriage was fixed for 25.2.1994. The respondent was not happy with this engagement and requested her parents to cancel the engagement. However, they refused to accede to her request. Therefore, it was just to put pressure on her parents that the respondent went with the appellant for an outing in the early morning of 8.1.1994 and visited Jalalabad, Karnal, Rohtak and then came back to Narwana on 11.1.1994. Taking undue benefit, the appellant got writings from the respondent and her signatures on some blank papers. It is in these circumstances that the appellant deposed the aforesaid affidavit dated 30.9.1994 at Jind. The affidavit was also executed by the father of the appellant on 27/28.9.1994 in this regard at Sonepat. Rattan Lal maternal uncle of the appellant also solemnly affirmed an affidavit on 30.9.1994 at Jind to the effect that no marriage was solemnised between the parties.

4. Replication was filed to the written statement wherein the stand taken in the written statement was denied and that taken in the petition was reiterated.

5. On the basis of the pleadin