MAT.APP.(F.C.) 108/2021

Page 1 of 11

$~

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Reserved on: 13^th September, 2022

Pronounced on: 28^th September, 2022

+

MAT.APP.(F.C.) 108/2021, CM APPL. 40621/2021 (Stay)

& CM APPL. 40622/2021 (Delay)

SMT. POOJA DUBEY

..... Appellant

Through:

Mr. Mahesh Srivastava with

Mr. Vaibhav Manu Srivastava,

Advocates

versus

SH. MANISH KUMAR

..... Respondent

Through:

Mr. Manjeet Singh Bhamra,

Advocate

(through

video

conferencing)

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT SHARMA

JUDGMENT

AMIT SHARMA J.

CM APPL. 40622/2021 (Delay)

The present application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act

has been filed on behalf of the appellant, seeking condonation of

delay of 35 days in filing the present appeal. In view of the facts and

circumstances of the case and averments made in the application, the

delay is condoned and the application is allowed.

The application is disposed of accordingly.

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/003933

MAT.APP.(F.C.) 108/2021

Page 2 of 11

MAT.APP.(F.C.) 108/2021 & CM APPL. 40621/2022 (Stay)

1. The present matrimonial appeal under Section 19 of The

Family Courts Act, 1984 has been preferred against judgment dated

19.12.2019 passed by Shri Dinesh Bhatt, Judge, Family Courts

(West), Tis Hazari, Delhi in HMA No. 1124/2014, whereby petition

filed by respondent under Section 9 of The Hindu Marriage Act was

allowed and a decree for restitution of conjugal rights was passed in

favour of the respondent and against the appellant.

2. Necessary facts for determination on the present appeal are as

follows:-

(i)

The respondent herein (hereinafter referred to as

husband) had preferred a petition under Section 9 of The Hindu

Marriage Act 1955 seeking restitution of conjugal rights. It was

the case of the husband that marriage between the appellant and

the former was solemnized on 03.03.2012 at Shri Bharat Mandir,

Jamuna Bazaar, Delhi-110006 according to hindu rights and

rituals. It was stated in the petition by the husband that the said

marriage was against the wishes of their respective parents, but

they were hopeful that after disclosure of their marriage, their

respective parents might approve and accept them as husband and

wife. Although the husband was able to convince his parents, but

the parents of the appellant did not approve of the same and did

not allow the appellant to join the husband at their matrimonial

home. Consequently, the husband initiated necessary steps,

including a writ petition in the nature of habeas corpus which was

disposed of by Division Bench of this Court by recording the fact

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/003933

MAT.APP.(F.C.) 108/2021

Page 3 of 11

that the appellant had refused to accompany the husband. It is also

on record that the appellant had filed a writ petition seeking to

restrain the husband from publishing, circulating and using

photographs and documents with respect to their marriage which

was disposed of by learned Single Judge of this Court, on the

statement made by the learned counsel for the husband that the

photographs and documents regarding marriage would not be

circulated in public except that they may be used by the husband

in any litigation before a Court of law. As per the petition under

Section 9 of The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 preferred by the

husband, the appellant was under pressure from the family

members and refused to join his company as his wife and

therefore, the remedy available to him under Section 9 of The

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was sought by way of the aforesaid

petition.

(ii)

In the written statement filed by the appellant before the

Family Court in response to the aforesaid petition, under Section 9

of The Hindu Marriage Act 1955, the appellant primarily took a

stand that there was no val