Daljit Kaur vs Gurbax Singh

J.V. Gupta, J.—This appeal has been filed by the wife against the decree for restitution of conjugal rights passed against her at the instance of the Respondent-husband by the trial Court on January 7, 1987.

The marriage between the parties was solemnised in the year 1972 Unfortunately, no child was born out of the said wedlock The Respondent husband filed the petition u/s 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, on August 31, 1985, on the allegations that he had always been polite towards her wife and was performing all the obligations towards her as a good husband. His mother was blind for the last seven or eight years. His wife, the Appellant, had always been pressing upon him to live separately from his parents He did not agree to this demand by her. Consequently, she withdrew from his society and had been living at village Harbans pura for the last 4 years before the filing of the petition, without any reasonable excuse. He had been going to bring her back, but she refused to come. He had also taken Panchayats to her village, but she remained adamant on her demand and refused to accompany him till he separated from his parents. It was also averred that there was no delay in filing the present petition. The petition was contested on the ground that the mother of the Respondent-husband was not blind, as alleged. It was denied that she had been pressing upon him to live separately from his parents. According to her, the behaviour of her husband had been cruel to her during her stay with him. He and his parents had been demanding a scooter and money from her parents, which they could not meet. He had been cruel to her for not giving birth to a child It was also pleaded that her husband had illegal relations with another lady and wanted to marry her. She had been turned out of the house about 2 years back and since then, she had been living with her brother. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues:

Whether the Respondent has sufficient cause to withdraw from the society of the petition ; 1

Relief.

After discussing the entire evidence, it was found that the husband had made efforts to bring the wife back to his house, but she had refused to do so untill the husband had separated from his parents. The trial Court also observed that the filing of the petition for restitution of conjugal rights proved the bona fides of the husband. During the efforts made by the trial Court for reconciliation the wife had refused to go with the husband on the allegation that he had been keeping her sister and also other woman, which had been proved to be false. Consequently, the decree for restitution of conjugal rights was passed by the trial Court.

The learned Counsel for the wife submitted that proper issues were not framed by the trial Court. She never withdrew from the society of her husband and she was even now prepared to go and live him Moreover, argued the learned Counsel, the petition filed was delayed and since the maintenance proceedings u/s 125, Code Criminal Procedure, are pending, the husband was not entitled to the decree for restitution of conjugal rights.

After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and going through the relevant evidence On the record, I do not find any merit in this appeal

In the trial Court, when efforts were made for reconciliation, the wife refused to go to the husband on the allegations that he had, been keeping her sister and also other women, which were found to be false. Even in this Court, the said allegations were made on her behalf''s. There is no cogent evidence on the record to prove the said allegations. In the absence of any proof it could not be successfully argued that the wife had sufficient cause to withdrew from the society of her husband As a matter of fact, no meaningful arguments could be raised on behalf of the Appellant to challenge the findings of the trial Court.

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