Order On Board

By Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri

03 /02/2023

1. Since both the appeals are arising out of similar facts, they are being considered and decided by this common order.

2. Both the appeals are preferred by Smt. Ranju Sahu/appellant.

(i) One appeal i.e. FAM No.104/2019 is against the dismissal of an application under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1955) which was preferred by the appellant, passed in Civil Case No.256-A/13 by the First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur (C.G.)

on 23-04-2018.

(ii) In another appeal i.e. FAM No.24/2019, application under Section 9 of the Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights, which was preferred by the respondent-Tikeshwar Sahu was allowed vide order dated 07-01-2019 passed in H.M. No.96-A/2013 by the First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur (C.G.).

3. The wife/appellant preferred an application under Section 12 of the Act

1955 with allegation that on 24-12-2012 while she was coming back from her village Bhurkoni to Raipur to hostel, she met the respondent-Tikeshwar Sahu in the village and she exceeded to the request made by him and came to Raipur from village Bhurkoni along with him. While coming back from Bhurkoni to Raipur, they met some relatives of Tikeshwar Sahu namely Bhojraj and Ravi Sahu. During such course, some cold drink was offered to her. Thereafter having taken the same, she suffered some uneasiness along with headache. Tikeshwar Sahu/respondent kept the document of appellant in his vehicle and after reaching Raipur, appellant was not feeling well and requested Tikeshwar to leave her at the hostel. Tikeshwar Sahu told that he has to discharge some job at Court and while they reached to the Court, Tikeshwar Sahu got signature of her on some document. When appellant refused to sign, threat was extended that her name would be tarnished and some false cases would be lodged against the family members of appellant thereby forced her to sign the document. Thereafter from Court, they reached to Tatibandh, Arya Samaj Temple Raipur, wherein Tikeshwar Sahu extended threat that he would commit suicide if she does not marry him and forced her to marry at Arya Samaj Temple. Thereafter, took her to Abhanpur and also went to Police Station to inform. Eventually, they reached at village Sarkhi, wherein the uncle of Tikeshwar Sahu called the maternal grand father of appellant. Under those circumstances, she went back along with maternal grand father. Thereafter, certain social meetings were held but the issue could not be resolved. Eventually, an application was filed under Section 12 of the Act, 1955 by the appellant/wife to declare the marriage dated 24-12-2012 to be nullity.

4. Likewise, Tikeshwar/respondent has filed an application under Section 9 of the Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights, for the reason that despite the marriage she was living separately without any sufficient reason. The Family Court after evaluating the facts and evidence, dismissed the application under Section 12 of the Act, 1955 filed by wife/appellant and allowed the application under Section 9 preferred by the husband/respondent for restitution of conjugal rights.

5. Being aggrieved by both the orders, the instant two appeals by the wife.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant/wife submits that evidence on record would show that after administration of some intoxicated drink, she was forced to sign certain blank paper and under the threat, marriage was performed at Arya Samaj Temple at Raipur. Therefore, the marriage being without consent and outcome of fraud is liable to be set aside by the decree of nullity and in consequence application under Section 9 for restitution for conjugal rights is liable to be dismissed inasmuch as the learned Family Court failed to appreciate those facts of undue coercion and fraud.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that according to the statement of the wife/appellant and th