JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 13.12.2012 (wrongly indicated as 13.10.2012) which is impugned at Annexure-'L' to the petition. 2. The brief facts to be noticed is that the respondent had instituted the petition in M.C.No.3749/2012 under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, seeking restitution of conjugal rights against the petitioner herein. In the pending proceedings, the respondent had filed I.A. No.2 (wrongly mentioned as I.A.No.4) under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of Civil Procedure Code seeking for an order of temporary injunction restraining the petitioner herein from marrying any other man pending disposal of the suit in the interest of justice. The said application had been opposed by the petitioner on all grounds including the contentions that the petitioner was not married to the respondent. The Court below by its order impugned at Annexure-'L' has allowed the application and restrained the petitioner herein from marrying any other person pending disposal of this petition. 3. The fact that there are certain other litigations pending between the petitioner and the respondent is not in dispute. However, specific reference need not be made to them in the instant petition, as the same is not the subject matter of the petition. During the pendency of the instant petition, the parties have attempted to resolve the disputes amongst themselves and in that view both the petitioner as well as the respondent have filed their respective affidavits before this Court which are both dated 29.08.2013. 4. The petitioner as well as the respondent are before this Court and to a question posed by this Court, they admit that they are aware of the contents of the affidavits which are filed before this Court with their concurrence. In that view, keeping in perspective the fact that in a matrimonial matter, when the parties have come up with such a proposal before this Court, the affidavits are taken on record. From the perusal of the affidavit filed by the respondent Prasad G.N. @ Prasad Panagar, he has stated that the averments made in M.C.No.3749/2012 to the effect that the petitioner herein is his wife is withdrawn and he does not claim the correctness of the averments made therein with regard to the marriage said to have been solemnized between the petitioner and the respondent as alleged by him. In view of the said statement made by the respondent in his affidavit, the petitioner through the affidavit though has referred to the other aspects of the matter has accepted this position to put a quietus to the litigations between the parties and in Para 8 of the affidavit has clearly stated that in view of the respondent having now accepted the position that they are not married to each other, all other litigations initiated by the petitioner against the respondent would be resolved in the manner known to law and the petitioner would co-operate with respondent to close all the said litigations without harming interest of the respondent. 5. If the contents of both the affidavits are noticed and when the respondent himself at this juncture contends that the claim as made in the petition that the petitioner and the respondent were married to each other had been made by him inappropriately, the relief sought in the application in IA.No.2 to injunct the petitioner and the same being granted by the court below would be without basis and therefore to the said extent, the impugned order at Annexure-'L' would have to be set aside, which is accordingly done. 6. Further, in view of the said averments, the petition in M.C.No.3749/2012 will also render itself infructuous which shall be brought to the notice of the Court below by the parties and have the same disposed of . Since I have taken note of the affidavits of the parties and have arrived at the conclusion that the impugned order is to be set aside and also I have taken note of the affidavits, wherein the respondent has resiled from his earlier contentions made in the petition and the parties have agreed that they have construed to this position to put a quietus to the matter, the averments made in the affidavits, being contrary to the position which had been taken in the litigations earlier, the same shall not act to the prejudice of the parties if based on the same, any action sought to the initiated. 7. With the said observations and the clarifications, the petition is allowed to the extent indicated above.