Jamil Akhtar vs Mohd. Shahid

Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.—Mohamad Shahid, the plaintiff-respon dent was married to Jamil Akhtar, the defendant-appellant on April 2? 1979. Alleging that she had withdrawn herself from his company and that his efforts to bring her back to the matrimonial- home having failed he filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights.

The defendant-appellant contested the suit primarily on the ground that the plaintiff-respondent was guilty of cruelty and that he had refused to keep her on account of her failure to meet the demands of dowry It was also alleged that the respondent had contracted a second marriage and that the suit was a counter-blast to her petition for payment of maintenance. The pleas raised in the written statement were controverted by filing a replication. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned Trial Court framed the following issues :--

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree for restitution of conjugal rights? OPP.

Whether the respondent/defendant has withdrawn from the society of the plaintiff with reasonable cause ? OPD.

Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the instant suit ? OPD.

Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder of necessary party ?

Relief.

The Trial Court found the issues in favour of the plaintiff-respondent and thus decreed the suit. The appeal of the defendant-appellants (the wife and her father) before the learned lower Appellate Court having failed, they have come to this Court in the present second appeal.

It is the admitted position that the parties are Mohammedans. Under the law governing the parties, the respondent had a right to contract more than one marriage. Consequently, this did not provide any justifiable cause to the appellant to refuse to stay with him. She has also not been able to prove that she was treated with cruelty on account of any dispute relating to dowry. The Courts below have rightly sustained the claim of the plaintiff-respondent.

I find no ground to reverse the finding of fact recorded by the Courts below.

Consequently, there is no merit in this appeal. It is dismissed. However, in the circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs.