PALLAVI BHARDWAJ Vs PRATAP CHAUHAN
Bench: G.S. SINGHVI,ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, , ,
Case number: C.A. No.-005054-005054 / 2011
Diary number: 20228 / 2008
Advocates: Vs
VISHWA PAL SINGH
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.5054_____OF 2011 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.17485 OF 2008)
Pallavi Bhardwah ..Appellant(s)
- Versus -
Pratap Chauhan ..Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
GANGULY, J.
1.Leave granted.
2.Heard learned counsel for the parties and
carefully perused the record.
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