JUDGMENT Pradeep Kumar, J.- Heard the learned counsel for the appellant Sanjeev Nayan Kumar. Nobody appeared on behalf of the respondent, although notices were served upon the respondent. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 23.9.2006 (decree was signed on 4.12.2006) passed by Sri Vishnu Kant Sahay, 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj in Matrimonial Case No. 20 of 2000, by which judgment the suit for restitution of conjugal right filed by appellant under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was dismissed. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant had adduced evidences to prove that the appellant, Sanjeev Nayak Kumar was legally married with Priti Kumari at Bhikhamdas Mandir, Daltonganj on 16.12.1999• and the plaintiff witnesses P.W. 1 and P.W. 4 proved the same. The said marriage was also registered by the appellant at Latehar Marriage Registration Office, which was also proved by the evidences of P.W. 6, and as such, the learned trial court committed an error of law and fact in dismissing the suit and refusing to pass decree for restitution. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant and after going through the evidences on record, I find that the plaintiff-appellant filed the Matrimonial Case No. 20 of 2000 for restitution of his conjugal rights in the Court of District Judge, Palamau. The plaintiff's case in his plaint is that the plaintiff and defendant both are the citizens of India and they are living within the jurisdiction of Palamau district at Daltonganj and on 16.12.1999, they got married at Bhikhamdas Thakurbari Ram Janki Mandir, Palamau at Daltonganj according to Hindu rites, which was latter registered in the office of the Marriage Registration at Latehar on 8.5.2000. The defendant had been living with the plaintiff at his residence as his wife. On 19.12.1999, the defendant's mother with other relatives came to his house and took her back on 'Bidai', but when she did not returned, then a legal notice was sent, then she came back on 7.2.2000 and subsequently on 8.5.2000 their marriage was registered and on 2.6.2000 again on the ground of her mother's illness, she was taken back to her 'naihar' by the family members of defendant. Subsequently, he came to know that his mother-in-law is in good health, but she (defendant) refused to come back under the influence of her mother, hence, he filed the suit for the restitution of his conjugal right. 5. It appears that the defendant appeared in the matrimonial suit and as per the defendant, no marriage ever took place between the plaintiff and the defendant either as per the Hindu custom in any temple or under the Special Marriage Act, and as such, no question of restitution of conjugal right can be claimed. The defendant stated that she never stayed with the plaintiff. She stated in para 9 that the plaintiff, Sanjeev Nayan Kumar is the resident of Gaya and in relation he is own 'Bhagina' of defendant's elder sister and as such the defendant is like his 'mami' and there is no question of marriage between a 'mami' and 'bhagina'. Since, after the death of plaintiff's mother, his father contracted second marriage and his stepmother behaved in most reckless manner, then he used to come to stay With mama and mami at Daltonganj. The respondent also used to come and stay with her (defendant's) elder sister after the death of her father and took advantage of defendant, who was being helped by her elder brother-in-law and her elder brother-in-law had given some photographs and certificates for her admission in Daltonganj college, which was misused by the plaintiff in making application to show her marriage with the plaintiff at Daltonganj in a temple and got it registered at Latehar. There is no question of the defendant going .to the Latehar for the registration of the marriage, which was alleged to have been done at Daltonganj, since, Daltonganj has got the Marriage Registration Office being the district headquarter. 6. It appears that both the parties contested the case and adduced evidence in court below and as per the evidence, the court found that plaintiff has failed to prove any marriage between the parties and hence dismissed the prayer. 7. After going through the pleadings and considering the evidences, I find that the appellant-plaintiff got examined about ten witnesses with regard to his marriage with the defendant at Bhikhamdas temple. He examined P.W, 1, Wachaspati Pathak and P.W. 4, Braj Mohan Pandey, the 'pujari', who stated that they conducted the marriage at the temple. . 8. 7. After going through the pleadings and considering the evidences, I find that the appellant-plaintiff got examined about ten witnesses with regard to his marriage with the defendant at Bhikhamdas temple. He examined P.W, 1, Wachaspati Pathak and P.W. 4, Braj Mohan Pandey, the 'pujari', who stated that they conducted the marriage at the temple. . 8. .p .W. 1, Wachaspati Pathak stated that on 16.12.1999, he conducted the marriage at Bhikhamdas Mandir, Daltonganj alongwith the pujari of the temple, but in his cross-examination he stated that he cannot give the Hindi 'tithi' (date) of the marriage. He also failed to give the name of any person on behalf of the bridegroom. He stated that he does not know the father's name of the boy and the father's and mother's name of the girl. He stated that he does not know as if there was any thakur (barber) in the marriage or not. In his cross-examination, he stated that registration of marriage is also maintained at Bhikhamdas Thakurbari, where the bridegroom and their guardian also signed and then a certificate is issued. The second pujari i.e. P.W. 4, Braj Mohan Pandey also stated that he conducted the marriage of the plaintiff and defendant on 16.12.1999 and he had also given certificate of marriage which was signed by Sanjeev Nayan Kumar and Priti Kumari and given the copies of them. In his cross-examination, however, he stated that he has got no appointment letter from the trust in the temple and he cannot show any paper that he is pujari of Bhikhamdas temple. In cross-examination at para 2, he stated that he has got no register of marriage conducted in the temple. The register is kept with the trustees. At para 3 of cross-examination, he also admitted that earlier a criminal case was instituted against him for conducting false marriage and he was convicted. He also stated that he does not know the name of the parents of the girl. 9. The other witnesses with regard to the marriage in the temple is the plaintiff himself. There is no other witness of the marriage in the temple. The plaintiff has also tried to prove the fact that he applied for marriage before the Registration of Marriage Office at Latehar. 9. The other witnesses with regard to the marriage in the temple is the plaintiff himself. There is no other witness of the marriage in the temple. The plaintiff has also tried to prove the fact that he applied for marriage before the Registration of Marriage Office at Latehar. In his evidence, when he was examined as P.W. 7, he stated that he was in love with the defendant, Priti Kumari right from 1995 and when the family members of both the sides came to know about the love, then they refused to perform their marriage, then finally on 15.12.1999 they went to Daltonganj Court and made affidavit before the Notary Public on 15.12.1999, then on 16.2.1999, they got married at Bhikhamdas Ram Janki Thakurbari Mandir and started living together and on 19.12.1999, she was taken back on 'Bidai' by her mother, sister and brother-in-law, but after 15 days, when he went to the defendant's house for taking back his wife, then they refused to send her back. Then, he made several attempts to bring her back with the help of social worker and lastly he filed a criminal case against her in-laws on 22.1.2000. Thereafter, on 7.2.2000, she came back with her brother-in-law and on 16.2.2000, he got the marriage registered at Latehar. But, again on 2.6.2000, the brother of Priti Kumari, Prakash Dayal, her brother-in-law, Purnod Kishor Sinha, Binod Shrivastava and her sister, Mina Shrivastava on the ground of illness of her mother, took her back. Thereafter, after two days, on 4.6.2000, he again went to his 'sasural' and asked for 'Bidai' of his wife, which was refused by them, then, he again issued notice through his lawyer on 8.6.2000, then a second notice on 17.6.2000 was issued. Then, lastly, he filed another complaint case being Complaint Case No. 356 of 2000 and on 2.9.2000, he filed this case for restitution. The plaintiff was cross-examined at length. In his cross-examination, he denied that Priti Kumari had filed a case of forgery against him before filing of this case, but admitted that she had filed a case against him denying the marriage. In his cross-examination, he also admitted that his father has• contracted second marriage and the name of his other mother is Smt. Shila Ambast. He admitted at Para 7 of his cross-examination that his 'nana' and 'nani' are residing at Daltonganj. In his cross-examination, he also admitted that his father has• contracted second marriage and the name of his other mother is Smt. Shila Ambast. He admitted at Para 7 of his cross-examination that his 'nana' and 'nani' are residing at Daltonganj. He also admitted in his cross-examination that Bhuneshwar Prasad Verma is his own brother of his mother and the name of his wife is Meera Verma and Priti Dayal is the younger sister of Meera Verma. He also admitted that the documents have got no certificate of Priti Dayal, rather the documents have signed as Priti Kumari He also admitted that Bhuneshwar Prasad Verma used to look after him during his lifetime. He also admitted at Para 14 of his cross-examination that on 16.12.1999 at Bhikhamdas Mandir, Only one of his brother, Gaurav Narayan Ambast was present at marriage and none of the family members of Priti Kumari was present there. He also stated at Paras 20-21 that he had got the name of Priti Kumari entered in the Ration Card, Voter List, etc. 10. It appears that other witness P.W.2, Pradeep Kumar Verma stated that he attended the marriage on 8.5.2000 at Latehar, but in his cross-examination at Para 3, he admitted that the marriage was done as per the form filled by the parties. He stated that he does not know the father or even the brother-in-law of Priti Kumari 11. P.W. 3, Avinash Kumar Sinha, who also claimed that he attended the marriage of the parties on 8.5.2000 at Latehar Registry Office, but stated that he does not know as to whether the father of Sanjeev Nayan is alive or not and he does not know his brother or sister. He cannot give even the name of, parents of the girl. He also stated at Para 3 that he cannot say as to whether the, parents of bridegroom were present at the time of marriage or not. At Para 6, he stated that he had done nothing in the marriage. He also stated at Para 7 that Sanjeev Nayan, the plaintiff is running a telephone booth and the witness Pradeep Verma, P.W. 2 works with him in the said booth. 12. At Para 6, he stated that he had done nothing in the marriage. He also stated at Para 7 that Sanjeev Nayan, the plaintiff is running a telephone booth and the witness Pradeep Verma, P.W. 2 works with him in the said booth. 12. P.W. 5, Manohar Kumar has also stated that he attended the marriage, but in his cross-examination, he admitted that he is a resident of Munger district and he was not knowing the court, in which the case was pending, nor he has met the girl before 8.5.2000. He had came to know the name of the girl as told by the Sanjeev Nayan. He had signed the register at the instance of the plaintiff. He also admitted at Para 4 that he does not know the personal knowledge of marriage and hence cannot tell about this. 13. P.W. 6, Manoj Kumar, who has claimed to be present in the marriage on 8.5.2000, stated in his cross-examination that both the parties were married on 8.5.2000 and they were unmarried and he does not know that Sanjeev Nayan belongs to Gaya and Priti is the resident of Daltonganj. He admitted that the address of Priti in the application was given as Daltonganj and she has got no relative at Latehar. At Para 5, he stated that he cannot say that what dress Priti was bearing on that day. At Para 5, he admitted that he has signed the register since his brother Manohar asked him to do so. 14. P.W. 8, Sheo Ratan Upadhyay stated that on 15.12.1999, Sanjeev Nayan Kumar and Priti Kumari came and signed on the affidavit in the civil court in his presence. Their signature were identified by Akhileshwar Prasad, the Advocate, but in his cross-examination, he stated that the date given on the affidavit is 15.12.1994 and he does not know the residence of Akhileshwar Prasad, Advocate. He also admitted at Para 4 that there is overwriting on the certificate of Priti Kumari. 15. P.W. 9 is the Ashok Kumar, who is the typist and he has stated that he has typed the same affidavit. P.W. 10, Kalu Ram, who is the notary, has stated to have signed the affidavit, but in his cross-examination, he stated that signature was done on 16.1.2000 at Latehar. 15. P.W. 9 is the Ashok Kumar, who is the typist and he has stated that he has typed the same affidavit. P.W. 10, Kalu Ram, who is the notary, has stated to have signed the affidavit, but in his cross-examination, he stated that signature was done on 16.1.2000 at Latehar. He has also stated that since the photograph of the girl was different, hence, two photographs were put by Nayan Babu in the form. He also admitted that the date was changed from 19 to 16 by cutting the same and there are two such cuttings. 16. Thus, from the evidences of plaintiff, it appears that the plaintiff was knowing the defendant from before as admitted by him by the evidence when he was examined as P.W. 7. Since, she was the younger sister of his own 'mami' and since his mother died, he came to live with his 'mama', that is with the brother-in-law of the defendant, and subsequently, after the death of defendant's father, she also used to be look after her brother-in-law and the plaintiff used to visit her and at the instance of her brother-in-law several photographs, etc. were given for her admission in Daltonganj college to the plaintiff Sanjeev and it appears that the photographs were with him. The plaintiff has adduced the witnesses that his marriage was solemnized at Bhikhamdas Janki Mandir, but, although the witnesses P.W. 1 and P.W. 4 have failed to prove that any 'kanyadan' was done, since, the witnesses of the plaintiff admitted that not a single member of Priti's family was present in the temple and admittedly some unknown person has given the 'kanyadan', even her presence in temple was doubtful, since, no witness have identified Petitioner they have met her earlier before the so-called marriage. Ad mittedly, the name of the defendant is not Priti Kumari, but it is Priti 'Dayal, the daughter of Jagdishwari Dayal and the signature of Priti Dayal is absent in any of the documents filed by the plaintiff in the so-called marriage certificate given by Bhikhamdas Mandir, which has been signed by Priti Kumari and in the affidavit also, the signature is of Priti Kumari and plaintiff witness, P.W. 8, Shea Ratan Upadhyay at Para 4 himself admitted that both the certificates of Priti Kumari has got overwriting and it appears from the naked eye also that there is overwriting over the name of Priti Kumari as Ext.-5. Even, in the form of marriage, which has been filed as Ext.-9, there are two different photographs of Priti Kumari pasted on the form. There is no certificate of Priti Kumari available, and as such. in my opinion also the plaintiff has failed to proved that there is any legal marriage between the plaintiff and the defendant, Priti Kumari giving in any right of restitution of conjugal relation. 17. The trial court while discussing Issue Nos. III and IV which are as under: "III. Was marriage between the parties solemnized on 16.12.1999 and registered on 8.5.2000? IV. Is the plaintiff/petitioner and the opposite party are legally married couple?" had came with a conclusive finding that at Para 36 that the plaintiff has not been able to substantiate marriage inter se the parties and gave a finding that no marriage between the parties was solemnized on 16.12.1999 nor it was registered on 8.5.2000 nor they can be said to be a legally married couple. I find no ground to disturb the said finding as discussed above. The trial court also decided Issue Nos. I and II which are as under: "1. The petition for restitution of conjugal rights is maintainable? II. Has the plaintiff got valid cause of action for filing matrimonial?" and came to a finding that application for restitution is not maintainable nor the plaintiff had valid cause of action for filing the case for restitution. 18. I find no merit in the appeal, the same is accordingly dismissed. .