RANCHI, India, June 6 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on May 6:

1. The instant appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 is directed against the judgment dated 20.03.2024 and decree dated 03.04.2024 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family Court, Giridih in Original Suit No. 164 of 2020, whereby and whereunder, the application filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal right, has been rejected.

2. The brief facts of the case as per the pleading made in the memo of appeal as has been narrated in the impugned judgment is required to be referred herein, which read as under:

The first marriage of the appellant Sitaram Ram was solemnized with Anju Devi and blessed with four children. After the death of first wife, the appellant solemnized second marriage with the respondent, namely, Priti Devi and blessed with one girl, namely, Pari Kumari on 06.04.2017. They lived together as husband and wife peacefully, however, after 14 months, the respondent went to her naihar stating that she will return in 7-10 days but after laps of 15 days, the respondent could not return to the matrimonial home. Then the appellant went to her sasural but the respondent refused to come with him, and thereafter, the appellant filed TMS Case No. 163 of 2017 on 05.07.2017. In the meantime, the family members of the respondent threatened the appellant, therefore, he filed a Snha in the CJM Court, Giridih.

In the said TMS Case No. 163 of 2017, mediation has been held in between the parties and the said case was compromised and it was decided that both the parties get separated and it was also decided that the appellant could meet his child, Pari Kumari, but when the appellant went to meet her child, the respondent and her family members did not permit him to meet his child.

On 24.03.2020, when the appellant went to the house of the respondent to meet his child, then the father of the respondent, uncle Birendra Ram, Ravi Ram and Rajesh Ram all threatened him for dire consequences and they forcibly took the thumb impression of the appellant on a plain paper and they threatened him to never come back to meet his child.

3. It is evident from the factual aspect that the appellant has solemnized marriage with the respondent and a female child has taken birth from their wedlock. It appears from the factual aspect that after the solemnization of marriage, one title matrimonial suit being TMS Case No. 163 of 2017 was filed which was disposed of in terms of the settlement arrived at in between the parties in the mediation wherein the parties have agreed to live separately. Subsequent thereto, the present application was filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking restitution of conjugal rights.

4. The learned Family Judge had issued notice to the respondent-wife but she has chosen not to appear. The matter proceeded ex-parte. The learned Family Judge has allowed the witnesses to be examined on behalf of the appellant-husband and altogether three witnesses have been examined including the appellant.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=bzPoyUlszYLCUcCpirIpqHWPw7EkMwoui7m2uuYfRLIAAQyhvgLT4wSvcjhA6IEi&caseno=FA/119/2024&cCode=1&cino=JHHC010167362024&state_code=7&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.