Ram Niwas vs Smt. Kusum Lata

D.V. Sehgal, J.—A petition for restitution of conjugal rights u/s 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1966 (hereinafter called ''the Act'') was filed by Ram Niwas Appellant, the husband, against his wife Smt. Kusam Lata Respondent. It was averred in the petition that the parties were married according to Hindu rites on 21.6.1983. They resided together as husband and wife in village Pahrawar, district Rohtak, and out of this wedlock a female child was born to them on 15.9.1984. Soon after marriage, the parties first resided together at village Ratia upto 16.10.1983 and during this period the Respondent had gone to her parents'' house and stayed there for about a week. The husband-Appellant, who is working as a Clerk in a Bank was then transferred to Bahadurgarh and the parties thereafter had been residing together at his parents'' village Pahrawar. The Respondent used to go to her parents'' house in village Mudka. In July, 1984, her brother took her away from the matrimonial home and she did not come back. The Appellants alleges that some respectables of their brotherhood went to the house of her father on their persuasion she was sent back to the matrimonial home. Again, however, on 27.7.1984 she left his house along with all her ornaments and clothes. Again, the respectables of the brotherhood intervened and she was sent back to his house on 7.8.1984. Her father thereafter lodged a false report at Police Station, Saddar Rohtak where the Appellant and the other respectables were summoned by the police. A compromise was then arrived at and she was taken by her father to his house on 14.8.1984. With a promise to send her back after 20 days but she never rejoined the Appellant''s society. She, thus withdraw from his society without reasonable excuse which actuated him to file the instant petition for restitution of conjugal rights. The Respondent-wife on the other hand controverter the allegations of the Appellant. She alleged that she was treated with cruelty by her husband and other members of his family. She was given beating when she could not persuade her parents to meet with their demands of dowry. They even intended to kill her and she wrote letters to her father who with the help of police recovered her from the clutches of the Appellant and his family members. She asserted that she had never of her own slipped away from her husband''s home along with clothes and ornaments. She denied the allegation that she had left the society of the Appellant without any reasonable excuse.

After receiving evidence of both the parties and considering the entire case, the learned Additional District Judge, Rohtak, vide his judgment and decree dated 1.10.1985 dismissed the petition. Thereupon, Ram Niwas filed the present appeal in this Court.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties at some length. The learned Counsel for the husband-Appellant has contended that the cause put forward by the Respondent-wife for her withdrawal from the Appellant''s society is on three counts. Firstly, her allegation is that she was given electric shock by the Appellant. Secondly, she was treated with cruelty by him and his family members and it was ultimately with the help of police that her father got her recovered from their house and thirdly, the Appellant and his parents had been making demands of dowry. He invited my attention to the written statement wherein there is no mention of the allegation of electric shock having been given to her. Even when the Appellant appeared in the witness-box as P.W.6 no question was put to him in cross-examination that he ever gave electric shock to the Respondent. As regards her being treated with cruelty and demand of dowry, he contends that there is no definite evidence on the record. Rather the application Ex. R. 6 made by her father ; the proceedings taken by the police thereon Ex. P.3, and the report of compromise Ex. P.5/1 have been effected between him and his parents on the one side and the father of the Respondent on the other show that the grievance was only that the Respondent wanted to go to her parents. Her father, according to Ex. P.5/1 took her to his house with a promise to send her back after 20 days. It is also recorded therein that none of the two sides had any grievance or complaint against each other. He also invited my attention to the diary Ex. P7 admittedly maintained by her which was produced by the Appellant in Court. It was contended that there is no mention in the said diary anywhere that there was any demand of dowry. He, therefore, submitted that there was no reasonable excuse for the Respondent to withdraw from the society of the Appellant and as such he was entitled to a decree for restitution of conjugal rights.

The learned Counsel for the Respondent on the other hand invited my attention to the contents of letters dated 18.11.1983, 25.1.1984 and 19.7.1984 Exs. R. 5, R.4 and R.1 respectively as also the letter dated 15.8.1984 Ex. P4 and the diary Ex. P. 7. Taking me through the contents of all these letters and the writings in the diary, he contended that the Respondent was being maltreated, her living in the house of her husband and his parents was made extremely difficult and she was urging her father to give her refuge in his own house. He, therefore, submits that all these happenings which are reflected in these letters and the diary make out a reasonable excuse for her for withdrawing from the society of her husband.

I have considered the rival arguments of the learned Counsel and have also gone through the documents and the evidence on the record. In my view, this appeal must fail. Letters of the Respondent to her father Exs. R. 1, R. 4. R. 5 and P. 4 leave no manner of doubt that the Respondent was finding it difficult to stay in the matrimonial home because of the day to day nagging by her husband and her mother-in-law. It is not necessary to go into the details of these letters. The cumulative effect is that there were indirect aspersions on her and her parents for not having given adequate gifts and dowry. When she returned to her husband''s house after Tisar (after the 3 customary visit to her parent''s house) the gifts which she brought with her were styled as "Tisar Ke Cheethre" which, in other words, means that the gifts brought by her were treated as rubbish. Her writings in the diary Ex P. 7 on 25.4.1984, 29.4.1984, 10/13.5.1984 and 4.6.1984 make it clear that her living at her in-laws'' house was made a hell for her. She was made to stand for the whole night and was not even allowed to sleep. She was deprived by her husband of his love. It should be noted that she was pregnant at that time and gave birth to a female child on 15.9.1984. Still before release on the intervention of the police consequent upon a complaint made by her father on 14.8.1984, her delicate health because of first pregnancy was completely disregarded and she was ill-treated.

No doubt from all this it may not be possible to make out a case for her that she was treated with cruelty by her husband or her in-laws but to my mind these circumstances do constitute a reasonable excuse for her for withdrawing from her husband''s society. It may be noticed that Sub-section (2) of Section 9 of the Act before its deletion by the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, 1976, provided nothing shall be pleaded in answer to a petition for restitution of conjugal rights which shall not be a ground for judicial separation or for nullity of a marriage or for divorce. Its omission by Section 3(b) of the Amendment Act makess it clear that it is not necessary that the cause shown should constitute a ground for judicial separation or divorce etc. What would constitute a reasonable excuse within the meaning of Section 9 of the Act would vary from case to case and with time and circumstances and is to be determined by the Court in each individual case in the light of its peculiar features. J am satisfied that the letters of the Respondent referred to above and the diary maintained by her in which she had been recording happenings from day to day which has been produced by the Appellant himself as Ex. P.7 in Court do make out a reasonable excuse for the Respondent for withdrawing from his society.

I, therefore, find no merit in this appeal which is dismissed without any order as to costs.