Smt. Gayatri Devi vs Jai Prakash (2025:Rj-Jd:19548-Db)
2025 Latest Caselaw 12166 Raj

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 12166 Raj
Judgement Date : 23 April, 2025

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Smt. Gayatri Devi vs Jai Prakash (2025:Rj-Jd:19548-Db) on 23 April, 2025

Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati

Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati

[2025:RJ-JD:19548-DB]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                  D.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 48/2025

Smt. Gayatri Devi W/o Jai Prakash, Aged About 29 Years,
Resident Of Ward No 51 B, 633/4, Vivekanand Nagar Police Line
Bhilwara Tehsil And District Bhilwara At Present Of Gokalpura
Tehsil Mandal District Bhilwara
                                                                        ----Appellant
                                       Versus
Jai Prakash S/o Nanada Das, Resident Of Ward No 51 B, 633/4
Vivekanand Nagar Police Line Bhilwara Tehsil And District
Bhilwara
                                                                     ----Respondent


For Appellant(s)             :     Mr. Raghuveer Singh Chundawat


     HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHAH Order

23/04/2025

1. This civil misc. appeal has been preferred claiming the

following reliefs:-

"It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this appeal may kindly be allowed and impugned judgment and decree dated 29.10.2024 passed by learned Family Court No.2, Bhilwara in Civil Misc. Case No.601/2022 may kindly be quashed and set aside and the application filed b the appellant under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act may kindly be ordered to be allowed as prayed for."

2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that it is a long

drawn marriage since 02.12.2010 and the appellant wife has a

right to demand conjugal relationship. He further submits that

conjugal rights are elementary part of a matrimonial relationship

and thus, dismissal of the appellant's application by the learned

trial court is not correct.

[2025:RJ-JD:19548-DB] (2 of 2) [CMA-48/2025]

3. However, learned counsel for the appellant was unable to

refute the fact that the appellant herself in a social gathering on

06.03.2022 and 07.03.2022 consented to the annulment of the

marriage and in lieu of such agreement, had taken alimony of

Rs.2,22,000/-.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant also could not refute the

fact noted by learned trial court that in the case registered by

appellant wife in Police Station Mandal, final report has been

proposed as the allegations levelled against the respondent

husband were not found right.

5. This Court takes note of the paragraph 11 of the impugned

judgment, which reads as follows:-

"11. izkFkhZ;k us ;g Lohdkj fd;k gS fd lkekftd NwV fpV~Bh izn"kZ , 01 ij mlds gLrk{kj gSa] ysfdu ;g gLrk{kj [kkyh dkxtksa ij djok;s FksA vizkFkhZ us izkFkhZ;k }kjk lkekftd Lrj ij fookg foPNsn fd;k tkuk crk;k gS vkSj vkthou Hkj.k iks'k.k izkIr fd;k tkuk dgk gSA vizkFkhZ dh bl lk{; ds fo#) foijhr esa dksbZ fo"oluh; lk{; izkFkhZ;k dh vksj ls ugha gSA izkFkhZ;k ;g crkus esa vlQy jgh gS fd vizkFkhZ fdl izdkj ls ;qfDr;qDr dkj.k ds fcuk mlls vyx jg jgk gS] tcfd mldh vksj ls is"k fd;s x;s vkijkf/kd izdj.kksa esa iqfyl us mUgsa >wBk ekuk vkSj U;k;ky; esa vafre izfrosnu is"k fd;s x;sA izkFkhZ;k dk ekeys esa LoPN gkFkksa esa mifLFkr gksuk ugha ik;k tkrkA vr% fook|d la- 01 izkFkhZ;k ds fo#) fu.khZr fd;k tkrk gSA "

6. This Court is of the view that on the face of the impugned

judgment, the reason given for denial of application under Section

9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal

rights, does not call for any interference of this Court. Hence, the

instant appeal is dismissed.

(SANDEEP SHAH),J (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J 39-nirmala/-