Manjit Kaur vs Baljit Singh

Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.—The husband''s application for a decree for restitution of conjugal rights was dismissed by the Trial Court. However, the first appeal was accepted. Resultantly, the wife has filed the present letters patent appeal. A few facts may be noticed.

The parties were married on March 23,1984. They separated in September, 1985. On January 3,1986, the petition for restitution of conjugal rights was filed by the husband. It was alleged that she (the wife) had left her matrimonial home with her parents with the promise to return after a week or so. Despite repeated efforts through the Village Panchayat, the respondent had refused to return. Thus, a decree for restitution of conjugal rights was prayed for.

The wife contested the claim. She filed a written statement in which it was averred that the husband had been demanded a motor-cycle after his brother had got it in his marriage. On her failure to bring a motor cycle, she was beaten and turned out of the house.

The Trial Court framed the following issues :

(1) Whether the respondent has deserted the petitioner without any suffi- cient cause ?

(2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to a decree for restitution of conjugal rights ?

(3) Relief.

The learned Additional District Judge found that the wife had not left the matrimonial home without sufficient cause. Consequently, the petition was dis- missed.

The findings recorded by the learned Trial Court have been reversed by the learned Single Judge. It has been held that the issues had not been properly framed by the Trial Court. The provision contained in the explanation to Section 9 whereby "the burden of proving reasonable excuse" is on the person who has withdrawn from the society, was ignored. Furthermore, the wife''s plea that she was maltreated on account of her not bringing a motor-cycle in dowry has been disbelieved. It has been held that there is no evidence "of any maltreatment as such". It has also been observed that "it appears from the attitude of the wife in this Court that she was not prepared to go with the husband on any condition. At one stage, she was even prepared to "break the marriage, if possible". In view of these facts, the learned Single Judge reversed the findings recorded by the Trial Court and decreed tine claim for restitution of conjugal rights.

The wife had initially filed the appeal through Mr. K.C. Puri, Advocate. When it was listed for hearing, the Counsel had already expired. Thus a direction for the issue of notice to the appellant was given by the Bench. The office reports that notice was issued to her for December 8,1997. It was duly served. No one has put in appearance on her behalf or even the respondent.

We have examined the record.

Admittedly, the parties have stayed separately since September, 1985. 13 years have already passed. It may not be inappropriate to say that the marriage is virtually dead. It is in an "insoluble mess". It appears to have irretrievably broken. There is nothing to show that the observations of the learned Single Judge are not correct. In fact, the findings based on what happened in the Court has not even been challenged in the grounds of appeal. In ground 8(a), it has been stated that "the learned Single Judge has been wrongly swayed away with the unwillingness of the appellant to go with her husband". This is clearly indicative of the fact that the wife was not willing to go back to her matrimonial home. In this situation, no fault can be found with the view taken by the learned Single Judge.

We find no ground to with the judgment under appeal as passed by the learned Single Judge.

Since no one has put in appearance on behalf of either party, we dismiss the appeal without any order as to costs.