JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment dated 2.9.2006 whereby the learned Court below has rejected the application of the appellant,husband Harsukh Ram under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on the ground that the alleged marriage between the appellant and Leela took place when she was only 3 years' old. 2. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that mandatory provisions for reconciliation between the parties were not undertaken by the learned court below, hence this appeal. 3. On a question from this Court as to whether the marriage in question between the appellant and the respondent Leela having admittedly taken place at the age when respondent Leela was 3 years of age was valid or void, the learned counsel for the appellant fairly submitted that in accordance with Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the said marriage is void. 4. In view or marriage itself being void, there is no question of any marriage subsisting between the parties, for which right of restitution could be claimed by the appellant , husband and therefore, the learned Court below cannot be said to have committed any error in rejecting the said application. The fact that said respondent Leela had already contracted another marriage with a third person after attaining majority further demolishes the case of the present appellant. 5. Consequently, this appeal against the rejection of application for restitution of so called conjugal rights with the respondent Smt.Leela cannot be entertained. 6. Accordingly, the appeal is found to be devoid of merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. A copy of this order be sent to the opposite party as well as trial Court.Appeal dismissed. *******