Narinder Kumar Sharma vs Chander Prabha

Amarjeet Chaudhary, J.—This appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 5-6-1987 passed by the learned District Judge, Jalandhar, whereby it had dismissed the petition u/s 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act (for short ''the Act'') for restitution of conjugal rights filed by the appellant-husband. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are ;

That the appellant filed a petition u/s 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights on the basis that his wife Smt. Chander Prabha has walked out of her matrimonial house on 5-3-1984 without any reasonable cause. Despite his repeated requests to bring her back she has not rehabilitated. It was urged in the petition that the respondent-wife was proud of the richness of her father and did not like the standard of living of her in-laws family. Even she was not performing her domestice duties as a wife and had no respect for the appellant''s parents. It was on 5.3.1984 when the appellant was away to attend to his professional duties, that the respondent-wife left for Delhi on the pretext to see her father, but she did not return to her matrimonial house despite several efforts to bring her back. In this manner, she has deserted appellant without any reasonable cause.

The case of the respondent-wife on the contrary is that it was the greed of the appellant and his parents which compelled her to walk out from the matrimonial home. The learned Trial Court framed as many as four issues. The learned Trial Court on consideration of the entire evidence led by the parties reached to the conclusion that the petition is mala fide one, as alleged in the written statement, that the respondent withdrew from the society of the petitioner on a sufficient cause and that the petitioner is not entitled to a decree for restitution of conjugal rights.

In the appeal filed in High Court the appellant has assailed the judgment of the Trial Court on the ground that in order to prove the reasonable cause of withdrawing from the society of the petitioner, the onus was upon the wife who has withdrawn herself from the matrimonial home which the respondent has failed to discharge, whereas the appellant has proved his desertion.

I have considered the arguments at the bar and have scanned the entire Trial Court''s file. Admittedly, the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 14.10.1983 and it is also not in dispute that the respondent-wife left her matrimonial home on 5.3.1984. This Court has to examine the circumstances which forced the wife to walk out from her matrimonial house. It is specific stand of the respondent-wife that many costly articles were given by her parents to the appellant at the time of her marriage. She has given the details of some of the articles while deposing as RW-1 before the Trial Court that the dowry included Scooter (Bajaj make), Television, sewing Machine, ornaments and other household goods. It is also in her testimony that these articles were not of the liking of her husband and other members of his family. Her husband wanted a Bajaj Priya scooter instead of Bajaj Chetak and Sewing Machine was also got changed at the instance of her in-laws. The replacement of the Sewing Machine was admitted by the father of the appellant while appearing as AW-2.

Kewal Krishan AW-3 stated that he had got the marriage between the parties arranged and after marriage the father of the appellant-husband met him and expressed his unhappiness over quantity/quality of the dowry articles. He further deposed that he had got certain articles of dowry changed at the instance of the father of the appellant-husband, there was a demand of more articles by the father of the appellant and he had suggested The appellant''s father to write a letter to the daughter in-laws'' father. This part of his statement has almost gone unrebutted.

Apart from this, there are several letters on record by the respondent-wife. It would be significant to refer to the contents of letter contained in Exhibit R-6. This letter is dated 3.2.1984 which was written by the respondent to her father from her matrimonial house at Jalandhar i.e. a month before leaving her husband''s house. In this letter, the respondent wrote to her father that whatever she had written to him earlier must be considered at the earliest as this matter was giving her continuous tension. In this very letter, she had written that it would have been better if everything regarding dowry have been settled prior to marriage. On one to occasion, the wife was advised to have talks with her father regarding cash and she was told that in case this demand is not met she need not come back from her father''s house.

A perusal of the documents and affidavits would indicate that it was the dissatisfaction and increasing greed for more dowry of the appellant and his parents resulting mental torture and harassment which compelled the respondent-wife to walk out from the matrimonial house. Even otherwise, there is no evidence to substantiate the allegations of the appellant that the wife was of boastful nature or she did not attend to her domestic duties; or was not respectful to her in laws. The Trial Court has also observed that the wife was ready to return to her matrimonial house provided she was given an assurance to be kept honourably but this offer was not responded to by the appellant and he was not willing to give surety for keeping the respondent honourably. It will be worthwhile to say that even an attempt was made by this Court to explore the chances of re-conciliation and the respondent Smt. Chander Prabha appeared before me on 1.11.1989 whereas the husband failed to do so. The wife expressed her willingness to re-settle in her husband''s house if she was given honourable place. Since there was no positive response from the husband side, the Court was left with no alternative except to decided this petition on merits.

In view of the foregoing reasons I find no substance in this appeal. Hence the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.