Amrik Singh vs Surjit Kaur

J.V. Gupta, J.—This is husband''s appeal whose petition u/s 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights has been dismissed by the Additional Senior Sub Judge, Nawanshahar.

The marriage between the parties was solemnised on 1st October, 1979 at Amloh. According to the husband, the wife left the matrimonial home in January, 1982. The present petition was filed on 18th July, 1985 on the allegations that the behaviour of his wife towards him and his family members was always quarrelsome. She started pressurising her husband, saying that he should permanently shift to Himmatgarh Chhanna or Amloh and should do business there, to which he did not agree. The wife started threatening that she will not live with him. About 4 1/2 years ago the wife went to her parents'' house on the pretext of seeing her ailing father and there-after she did not return to the husband''s house to discharge her marital obligations. While leaving the house, she took along all the jewellery and costly clothes. The husband convened panchayats to bring back the respondent wife, but she did not agree. Thus she has deserted the appellant without any reasonable excuse.

In the written statement the said allegations were denied by the wife. It was pleaded that it was a counter-blast to the petition filed by her u/s 125, Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance. Moreover, the present petition had been filed after a long delay and no explanation had been given for the same. On merits it was stated that there were two pregnancies but the same had resulted in abortion as a result of severe beating given by the husband. He treated her with utmost cruelty and forced her to leave the matrimonial home. After the marriage, the husband and his family members started misbehaving with her on the allegations that she had not brought sufficient dowry at the time of marriage and that she was a simpleton. The husband also asked the respondent to bring Rs. 30,000/- from her parents, as he intended to start independent business. The parents of the respondent paid Rs. 5,000/- to the husband, but even then he did not feel satisfied and he continued maltreating and beating the wife. It was further stated that she was turned out from the house in bare three clothes and the husband was guilty of deserting the wife.

On the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues:-

Whether the respondent has withdrawn from the society of the petitioner without reasonable cause? OPA.

Relief.

After discussing the entire evidence it was concluded that the allegations of the husband were neither credible nor plausible nor the wife had abandoned the society of her husband without any reasonable excuse. In view of these findings, the petition was dismissed.

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the dowry story put up by the wife has not been accepted by the Court below. Moreover, the burden has been wrongly shifted on the husband, rather in view of the Explanation to Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, it was for the wife to prove that there was a reasonable cause for her to withdraw from the society of the husband, which she had failed to prove by any cogent evidence. There was no independent witness produced by her to support her allegations. There was no evidence of any danger to her life, as alleged.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-wife submitted that the petition was filed after undue delay. According to the allegations in the petition itself the wife had left the matrimonial home in January, 1981 and not in 1982, as alleged, whereas the present petition was filed after more than four years i.e. on 18th July, 1985. The two pregnancies were aborted because of the maltreatment of the husband. There was no evidence of her being of quarrelsome nature, as alleged. The story put up by the husband that she wanted him to have a separate business, was never proved. He further brought to the notice that during the pendency of this petition, the husband filed a criminal complaint u/s 406, I.P.C., against the parents of the wife on 10th February, 1986. The wife had to file an application u/s 125, Cr.P.C., for maintenance on 8th August, 1985. She also filed a criminal complaint u/s 406 I.P.C. and under the Dowry Prohibition Act on 6th December, 1985, which is still pending However, as regards the complaint filed on behalf of the husband, it has been stated at the bar that the same was got dismissed on 13th August, 1987 during the pendency of this appeal.

However, an effort was made for reconciliation in this Court. But unfortunately it could not succeed. Even in the trial Court the wife, while appearing in the witness-box as R.W. 1 categorically stated in her cross-examination that she was not prepared to go to her husband. Since she apprehended danger to her life, she was not inclined to join the matrimonial company of her husband. Same was her attitude in this Court.

Under these circumstances, the question to be decided in this appeal is whether the wife has withdrawn from the society of her husband without reasonable cause, as alleged by the husband in his petition, or not. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the evidence on the record. I do not find that a case has been made out for interfering in the finding of the trial Court at the appellate stage. Apart from that, there has teen unnecessary delay in instituting the present proceedings and no explanation has been given by the husband in this behalf. From the allegations in the petition as well as from the evidence it is evident that she left the matrimonial home in January, 1981. The Petition was filed in July, 1985 i.e. more than four years there after. There is no cogent explanation for this delay of four years, particularly, for seeking the relief of restitution of conjugal rights. Besides that, during the pendency of the petition before the trial Court, proceedings u/s 406 I.P.C. were taken by the husband against the parents of the wife. As a counterblast she also filed a criminal complaint u/s 406 I.P.C. and under the Dowry Prohibition Act. Thus, the relations became more strained during the pendency of these proceedings.

As regards the version put up by the parties, they have failed to prove the same by any cogent evidence. The story put up by the wife that she was asked to bring more dowry and she had brought Rs. 5,000/-, has not been accepted by the trial Court. Similarly, the story put up by the husband, that his wife was of quarrelsome nature and the two pregnancies were aborted by her against his wishes, has not been proved on the record.

In the view of the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any justification for interference in the findings of the trial Court.

Consequently, the appeal fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs.