1 2025:CGHC:61438-DB AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR FA(MAT) No. 219 of 2023 Devashish Naik S/o Shri Maheshwar Naik Aged About 38 Years R/o Near Radhakrishna Mandir, Pachripara, Durg, Tahsil And District- Durg, C.G. ... Appellant/Plaintiff versus Smt. Monika @ Pinki Naik W/o Devashish Naik Aged About 37 Years D/o - Lalit Dewangan, Present R/o Ward No. 56, Beside Ganesh Kirana Stores, Indira Nagar, Baghera, Durg, Tahsil And District- Durg, C.G. ... Respondent/Defendant For Appellant : Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Shashi Kumar Kushwaha, Advocate DB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment On Board 17.12.2025 Sanjay K. Agrawal, J. 1. Invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Section 19(1) of Family Court Act, 1984, the appellant/plaintiff has HARNEET KAUR Digitally signed by HARNEET KAUR Date: 2025.12.17 17:04:54 +0530 2 preferred this appeal calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of impugned order dated 03/07/2023 (Annexure A/1) passed in Civil Suit No. 936/2022 whereby learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg has dismissed the application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter, the Act of 1955) filed by the appellant/plaintiff for restitution of conjugal rights finding no merit. 2. The aforesaid challenge has been made on the following factual backdrop :- (a) Appellant/plaintiff filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights alleging that his marriage was solemnized with the respondent/defendant on 07/02/2020 at Patalbhairvi temple, Rajnandgaon and after some time of the marriage, the behaviour of the respondent/defendant changed and she started quarrelling with him and without any reasonable cause, she left his company on 11/09/2022 and went to her parents’ house, however, the appellant/plaintiff persuaded her to come along with him to their matrimonial home and perform her matrimonial obligation but she clearly refused, which led to the filing of the suit by the appellant/plaintiff. (b) Respondent/defendant filed her written statement and opposed the plaint averments stating inter alia that her 3 marriage was solemnized with one Chandra Prakash Dewangan twelve years ago i.e. in the year 2010 and they have been blessed with a daughter, who is now aged about 8 years. She has further stated that appellant/plaintiff has taken Rs. 2,50,000/- from her fraudulently in the name of filing a case in the Court and also took her signature in a blank paper for that purpose, however, he then started to blackmail her and since they have never been married, the suit filed by him for resitution of conjugal rights is liable to be dismissed. 3. Learned Family Court, after consideration of oral and documentary evidence on record, held that appellant/plaintiff has failed to establish his marriage with the respondent/defendant and proceeded to dismiss the suit filed by him for restitution of conjugal rights. 4. Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff, would submit that the Family Court is absolutely unjustified in dismissing the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff holding that the marriage between the parties has not been proved, as such, the appeal be allowed the matter be remanded to the Family Court for re- examining the fact of marriage of the parties. 5. Mr. Shashi Kumar Kushwaha, learned counsel for the respondent/defendant, would support the impugned order 4 and submit that the instant appeal is liable to be dismissed. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 7. The short question for determination in this appeal is, “whether the Family Court is justified in dismissing the siut of the appellant/plaintiff under Section 9 of the Act of 1955 holding that the marriage between the appellant/plaintiff and resondent/defendant has not been established ?” 8. In order to consider the plea raised at the Bar, it would be appropriate to notice Section 9 of the Act of 1955, which provides as under :- “9. Restitution of Conjugal Rights. - When either the husband or the wife has, without reasonable excuse, withdrawn from the society of the other, the aggrieved party may apply, be petition to the district court, for restitution of conjugal rights and the court, on being satisfied of the truth of the statements made in such petition and that there is no legal ground why the application should not be granted, may decree restitution of conjugal rights accordingly.” 9. A careful perusal of the aforesaid provision would show that the foundation of the right to bring a suit for restitution of conjugal rights is the fundamental rule of matrimonial law that one spouse is entitled to the society and comfort - consortium - of the other spouse and where either spouse has abandoned or withdrawn from the society 5 of the other without reasonable excuse or just cause, the court should grant a decree for restitution. However, restitution presupposes a valid marriage and when there is no acceptable evidence of marriage, no restitution can obviously be ordered. 10. The Supreme Court, in the matter of Pallavi Bhardwaj v. Pratap Chauhan1, has held that in case of no evidence of valid marriage between the parties, the Family Court is justified in refusing to grant decree for restitution of conjugal rights. It has been observed in paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 as under :- “4. 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, daughter of Shri Jeet Singh, resident of 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 costs of Rs 2 lakhs. 5. From the said judgment, an appeal was filed before the High Court in which the Division Bench of the High Court has taken a very peculiar stand in the proceeding by trying for conciliation. The High Court has noted that the appellant girl has categorically denied the existence of marriage and the existence of a 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 1 (2011) 15 SCC 531 6 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, the 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 costs of Rs 2 lakhs to be paid by the respondent within 3 months in favour of the Supreme Court Mediation Centre, New Delhi. The appeal is thus allowed with costs of Rs 2 lakhs as aforesaid.” 11. Coming to the facts of the present case in light of the fundamental rule of matrimonial law as provided under Section 9 of the Act of 1955 as well as the principle of law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Pallavi Bhardwaj (supra), it is quite vivid that it is the case of the respondent/defendant that she has already been married with one Chandra Prakash Dewangan from 2011 and they have an eight years old daughter and in order to blackmail her, appellant/plantiff took her signature in a blank paper and as such, there was no valid marriage between them at all. In that view of the matter, learned Family Court came to the categorical conclusion that marriage between the appellant/plaintiff and respondent/defendant was never solemnized as there is no evidence available on record to establish their marriage. The facts of the instant case are similar to the facts of Pallavi Bhardwaj (supra) wherein their Lordships of the Supreme Court have clearly held that Family Court is 7 justified in rejecting the application under Section 9 of the Act of 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights for want of valid marriage between the parties. Thus, we are of the considered opinion that learned Family Court has rightly rejected the suit of the appellant/plaintiff as the marriage between the parties has not been established. We do not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned order. 12. Accordingly, the instant appeal, being devoid of merits, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own cost(s). 13. A decree be drawn accordingly. SD/- SD/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE JUDGE Sd/- Harneet