( 1 ) THIS is an appeal by appellant Mst. Gindan and four others against the judgment and decree dated 1st August, 1974 passed by the Additional District judge, Parma, in Civil Suit No 3-A of 1973 by which the petition of the respondent, Barelal, under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights has been allowed.

( 2 ) BRIEF facts of the case are that Mst. Gindan (appellant No. 1) was married about fifteen years back to the respondent. From the wedlock three children were born out of whom two are dead and the third male child aged about 9 months is with appellant No. 1. Appellants Nos. 3 to 5 are brothers of appellant no. 1 and appellant No. 2 is her father. According to the respondent, his wife mst. Gindan had no reasonable excuse to withdraw herself from his society along with all the ornaments given to her by him and as such he was entitled for a decree for restitution of conjugal rights against her and a direction to other appellants to refrain from stopping her from going with him as she is living with them.

( 3 ) IN defence, appellant No. 1 Mst. Gindan denied the allegations made by the respondent and pleaded that she was ill treated by her husband to the extent of cruelty and was ousted from the house. She further denied to have taken away any ornaments. On the other hand, her allegation is that her ornaments are in possession of the respondent. She further stated that about two years back she was beaten by her husband (respondent) resulting in a fracture of her right wrist. The death of the two children has been alleged on account of poor feeding at the instance of the father who not only prevented her to give them proper food but she was also not properly fed with the result that her health had shaken considerably. On the persuasion of the respondent, her parents persuaded her to go with her husband, but on the way she was again beaten and she had to return back. According to her, in these circumstances she has ultimately decided to reside with her parents. She completely denied that the appellants 2 to 5 ever stopped her from going to her husband's place and they have been unnecessarily impleaded as parties in the case.

( 4 ) AS regards the remaining appellants 2 to 5, they have supported the case of the appellant No. 1 but denied that they ever came in the way of appellant No. 1 in going to her husband's place and live with him.

( 5 ) THE trial Court allowed the petition of the respondent and directed appellant no. 1 Mst. Gindan to return to cohabitation with her husband and live with him as claimed within two months from the receipt of the order. The other appellants have been ordered to abstain from harbouring the wife (appellant no. 1) or otherwise interfering with the rights of the respondent as her husband. Hence this appeal.

( 6 ) HAVING heard learned counsel of the parties, we are of opinion that this appeal has no merit and must be dismissed. At the outset we would like to mention that before the hearing of this appeal commenced, a written application was moved on behalf of the appellants to raise certain important questions of law and jurisdiction. The said application was not opposed and rightly so and it was allowed. Before us, learned counsel for the appellants raised four contentions; firstly, that the marriage between the appellant No. 1 and the respondent was void ab ini-tio being forbidden by law as under Section 5 (iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act the bride must have completed the age of fifteen years at the time of the marriage, while in the present case the age of the wife (appellant No. 1) was about 10 years; secondly, that the trial Court could not entertain the present petition as the respondent had not complied with the provisions of Sections 19 and 20 of the Act and the rules made thereunder, i. e. , the petition was not filed in the principal civil Court of original jurisdiction namely, the District Judge but in the Court of Additional District judge