Pallavi Bhardwaj vs Pratap Chauhan

1 3. This appeal is from a judgment and order dated

25.4.2008 passed by the Division Bench of the

High Court in First Appeal No.328/2008. The

Division Bench of the High Court in the impugned

judgment disposed of the First Appeal with

certain directions relating to so-called

matrimonial dispute between the parties.

4. The case is based on very peculiar facts. The

grievances of the appellant are that there is no

marriage between him and the respondent but the

respondent in order to defame her in society

filed a suit for restitution for conjugal rights,

inter alia, on the ground that marriage between

them took place on 28th October, 2007. It is an

admitted position that there is no valid document

evidencing marriage. Nor is there any acceptable

evidence of marriage. The Principal Judge, Family

Court, Meerut in his judgment and order dated

01.04.2008 has elaborately discussed the facts.

2 Since the facts have been very elaborately

discussed in the judgment of the Family Court,

the same need not be repeated here. The Family

Court came to a finding that the attempt of the

husband is to blackmail the appellant herein and

the respondent husband had already married Smt.

Seema, D/o Shri Jeet Singh, R/o 263 Begum Bagh,

Meerut and a daughter was born in connection with

the said marriage and was studying in school. In

the background of those facts the Principal

Judge, Family Court, Meerut held since there is

no marriage there is no question of restitution.

The Family Court, therefore, dismissed the said

petition with cost of Rs.2 lacs.

5. From the said judgment, an appeal was filed

before the High Court in which the Division Bench

of the High Court has taken very peculiar stand

in proceeding by trying for conciliation. The

High Court has noted that the appellant girl has

3

categorically denied the existence of marriage

and the existence of joint account in a bank. The

High Court has not recorded anywhere about the

validity of the marriage. Even then the High

Court strangely enough explored the possibility

of a settlement between the parties. The High

Court without coming to any finding about the

validity of marriage and after recording that the

validity of marriage was always denied by the

appellant gave certain directions which are

wholly inconsistent with the facts of the case.

Since no marriage has been established,

directions given by the High Court are wholly

inappropriate.

6. Therefore, the order of the High Court is set

aside and we restore the judgment of the Family

Court with cost of Rs.2 lacs to be paid by the

respondent within 3 months in favour of Supreme

Court Mediation Centre, New Delhi.

4 7. The appeal is thus allowed with costs of Rs.2

lacs as aforesaid.

.......................J.

(G.S. SINGHVI)

.......................J.

(ASOK KUMAR GANGULY)

New Delhi

July 04, 2011

5