Patna High Court
Yogendra Pandit vs Rita Das on 7 August, 2025
Author: P. B. Bajanthri
Bench: P. B. Bajanthri
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Miscellaneous Appeal No.671 of 2018
======================================================
Yogendra Pandit Son of Babu Lal Pandit, Resident of Village- Sita Kund Dih
Kalyanchak, P.O.- Dariyapur, Police Station- Mufassil, District- Munger.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
Rita Das Wife of Yogendra Pandit, Daughter of Late Bajrangi Das, resident of
Mohalla- Nayagaon, Kabristan Road Near Residence of D.S.P., P.O. Jamalpur,
Police Station- East Colony, Jamalpur, District- Munger.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Abdul Mannan Khan, Adv
Mr. Hafiz Shahbaz Arif,Adv
For the Respondent/s : Mr.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI
And
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. B. PD. SINGH
CAV JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. B. PD. SINGH)
Date : 07-08-2025
Heard the parties.
2. The present appeal has been filed under Section
19(1) of the Family Court Act, 1984 impugning the
judgment and decree dated 01.06.2018 passed by learned
Principal Judge, Family Court, Munger in Matrimonial
Case No. 844 of 2013 (C.IS.)/Old Case No. T.S (Mat.) 69
of 2013 filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act
whereby learned Family Court has rejected the
Patna High Court MA No.671 of 2018 dt.07-08-2025
2/11
matrimonial suit filed on behalf of the appellant-husband
for restitution of conjugal rights with the respondent-wife.
3. The case of the appellant as per petition filed
before the Family Court is that the marriage of the
appellant was solemnized with the respondent according
to Hindu rites and customs at Hanuman Temple on
17.09.2005
situated in the campus of Munger Civil Court
in presence of parents, relatives and friends of both the
parties. After marriage, both the parties sworn affidavit
before Notary at Civil Court, campus as the marriage
between the parties was ideal marriage. The appellant was
an Advocate at the Civil Court whereas respondent was
working in the State Bank of India. After marriage, the
respondent came at her matrimonial house and started
living with the appellant and stayed at her matrimonial
house for about eight months. The respondent, thereafter
on 01.05.2006, went to her Maike along with all belongs
on the pretext that she is facing difficulty to attend her
duty from her matrimonial house. The appellant used to
visit the Maike of the respondent after completing his
court’s work. Further case of the appellant is that
Patna High Court MA No.671 of 2018 dt.07-08-2025
3/11
whenever he tried to bring her back to her matrimonial
house, the respondent refused on the pretext of her job.
The last cohabitation between the parties was established
on 30.06.2010 and thereafter, the respondent refused to
cohabit with the appellant without any reasonable cause
and started saying him that she is an Officer in Bank
whereas appellant is advocate, therefore, she cannot live
with him and asked him not to come to her house. The
appellant made every efforts to bring back the respondent
into her matrimonial house but all his efforts went in vein.
Ultimately, the appellant has filed Matrimonial Case No.
10 of 2011 for restitution of conjugal rights which was
rejected on 29.10.2011. After the said order, the appellant
again went to the Maike of the respondent and requested
her to bring back to her matrimonial house and cohabit
with him but she refused and told him that she had
performed second marriage with Devnayak Mishra @
Devnayak Das and she wants to live with him. Hence, the
present matrimonial case has been filed for restitution of
conjugal life.
4. In response to the summon/notice issued by the
Patna High Court MA No.671 of 2018 dt.07-08-2025
4/11
Court, respondent-wife appeared and filed her
reply/written statement.
5. In her written statement, the respondent-wife
has stated that most of the facts and allegations stated in
the aforesaid petition are false and baseless and the case is
not maintainable in the eye of law or on the basis of facts.
The respondent has clearly stated that she never married
with the appellant in any way either religious, or legal. It
has been further stated that earlier also appellant has filed
a petition for restitution of conjugal rights which was
dismissed. The respondent has already married with
Devnayak Mishra @ Mahant Devnayak Das and both are
leading happy conjugal life. It has been further submitted
that appellant has absolutely no ground to get any decree
of restitution of conjugal right. It has been further
submitted that the document filed on behalf of the
appellant is forged and fabricated and since there is no
existence of any marriage between the appellant and the
respondent, hence the question of restitution of conjugal
rights does not arise.
6. After conclusion of the trial, the learned
Patna High Court MA No.671 of 2018 dt.07-08-2025
5/11
Principal Judge, Family Court has held that appellant has
not established his claim. Accordingly, the Trial Court
came to the conclusion that the appellant was not entitled
for any relief filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage
Act.
7. Thereafter, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with
the aforesaid judgment and decree passed by the learned
Family Court, the present appeal has been filed by the
appellant.
8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant has submitted that the judgment and decree
passed by the learned Court below is bad and appears to
be mechanically passed without application of judicious
mind. The learned Family Court has not considered the
materials brought on record by the appellant and in a
casual manner, dismissed the petition filed under Section
9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The learned Family Court
has also not considered this fact that during the
subsistence of first marriage, the respondent has again
married with one Devnayak Mishra @ Mahant Devnayak
Das which is null & void abinitio.
Patna High Court MA No.671 of 2018 dt.07-08-2025
6/11
9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the respondent-wife has submitted that the impugned
judgment and decree is just, legal and in accordance with
law. The learned Trial Court has rightly appreciated the
evidence adduced on behalf of both the parties in the right
perspective and has correctly dismissed the suit filed on
behalf of the appellant-husband.
10. In view of the rival contentions, evidences and
the arguments adduced on behalf of both the parties, the
main points for determination in this appeal are as
follows:-
(i) Whether the appellant is entitled to
the relief sought for in his petition/appeal.
(ii) Whether the impugned judgment of
Principal Judge, Family Court, is just,
proper and sustainable/tenable in the eyes of
law.
11. During the course of trial, altogether three
witnesses have been examined on behalf of the appellant
which are P.W. 1 Yogendra Pandit (appellant himself),
P.W. 2 Sikhdeo Yadav and P.W. 3 Upendra Prasad.
Patna High Court MA No.671 of 2018 dt.07-08-2025
7/11
12. The appellant has also brought on record the
following documents.
Ext-1 Marriage Certificate issued by Sri
108 Mahabir Mandir, Civil Court, Munger
Ext.2 Affidavit of Yogendra Pandit sworn
before Notary, Munger
Ext. 2/1 Affidavit of Rita Das sworn before
Notary, Munger
Ext. 3 Deposition of Rita Das Nayak wife
of Dev Narayan Das in G.R. No. 1260 of
2003
Ext. 4-Vakalatnama executed by Rita Das
in favour of Advocate Uday Prakash,
Yogendra Pandit on 04.08.2005 in G.R. Case
No. 1260 of 2013.
13. The respondent though has not produced any
evidence but has brought on record the following
documents:-
Ext. A- Photo copy of application written
by Pujari Murli Dhar Mishra filed in
complaint case no. 369 C of 2010
Ext. B- Copy of order dated 29.10.2012
passed in Title Suit (Mat) no. 10 of 2011
(Yogendra Pandit vs Rita Das) by the court
of Principal Judge, Family Court, Munger
as per which the aforesaid case was rejected
Patna High Court MA No.671 of 2018 dt.07-08-2025
8/11under Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC.
Ext. C (with objection)- Photo copy of
fardbeyan of Kuldeep Goswami recorded by
S.I. Irfan Ahmad, Teghra O.P. on 11.06.1996
on the basis of which Kharagpur P.S. case
no. 153 of 1996 dated 11.06.1996 U/S 302,
120(B),34 IPC was registered.
Ext. D (with objection)- Petition dated
09.07.2016 filed before S.P. Munger by Rita
Das.
14. From perusal of the evidences of P.W. 1
Yogendra Pandit(appellant), it appears that though he has
reiterated the same version as was stated in his petition
but he has deposed that he has not registered his marriage.
He has also admitted that no registration number of any
organization has been entered in Ext-1 nor any name or
signature of any witness has been entered in the Ext 1. He
has also admitted that he is on bail in a case filed by the
respondent in a defamation case.
15. P.W. 2 Sukhdeo Yadav though in his
examination-in-chief has admitted that he has seen the
marriage being solemnized between the appellant and
Patna High Court MA No.671 of 2018 dt.07-08-2025
9/11
respondent but in his cross-examination, he has deposed
that he did not know the respondent nor he can say about
the relatives who attended the marriage.
16. P.W. 3 Upendra Prasad has deposed in his
examination-in-chief that he was present at the time of
marriage and he has identified the marriage certificate
issued by Pandit Murlidhar Mishra but in his cross-
examination he has deposed that he does not know any
Pandit Murlidhar Mishra.
17. Now, we need to analyze whether the appellant
has married with the respondent as respondent claims that
she never married with the appellant.
18. The appellant has brought on record the
marriage certificate (Ext.1) showing that his marriage was
solemnized with Rita Das at Shri 108 Mahavir Mandir,
Civil Court Munger on 17.09.2005 and marriage
certificate was issued by Pandit Murlidhar Mishra, but
said Pandit Murlidhar Mishra has not been produced as a
witness by the appellant to prove his marriage. P.W. 3 who
claims to have attended the marriage has also deposed in
his cross-examination that he does not know Pandit
Patna High Court MA No.671 of 2018 dt.07-08-2025
10/11
Murlidhar Mishra who has issued marriage certificate.
Further, the appellant claims that after marriage both the
parties sworn affidavit before Notary Public, Munger on
17.09.2005 but said certificate also does not bear any
number of the organization nor any witness has signed
over the certificate. Both the witnesses i.e. P.W. 2 and 3
produced by the appellant have not proved that appellant
has married with the respondent.
19. The respondent has brought on record the
application written by Pandit Murlidhar Mishra in
Complaint Case No. 369C of 2010 wherein he has
completely denied to have issued any marriage certificate
in favour of the appellant, rather, he claims that he
protested at the time of issuing the certificate in favour of
the appellant.
20. Considering the facts aforesaid, it is clear that
appellant has not brought on record any relevant and
reliable proof to show that he has legally married with the
respondent.
21. The evidences produced on behalf of the
appellant does not appear to be trustworthy in the eye of
Patna High Court MA No.671 of 2018 dt.07-08-2025
11/11
law. There is no such declaratory decree also by any
competent court holding that opposite party/respondent is
legally married with of the appellant.
22. Accordingly, we find no merit in the present
appeal warranting any interference in the impugned
judgment. The Family Court has rightly dismissed the
petition filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act
for restitution of conjugal rights.
23. The present appeal is dismissed accordingly,
affirming the impugned judgment.
( S. B. Pd. Singh, J)
(P. B. Bajanthri, J)
Shageer/-
AFR/NAFR AFR CAV DATE 01/05/2025 Uploading Date 07/08/2025 Transmission Date N/A