Roopa vs Mrutyunjaya

Mohan M. Shantana Goudar, J.—The petition filed by the respondent herein under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights is decreed by the impugned Judgment and Order. The appellant is directed to join her husband and to lead matrimonial life in his house.

The marriage between the appellant and the respondent has taken place on 22.12.1997 at Hukkerimath, Haveri. According to the respondent, the appellant herein lived with him in the matrimonial house for five days and thereafter she went to Belgaum for continuing her housemanship course. After completing the course, the appellant herein came to her matrimonial house and lived for 30 days. However subsequently the appellant allegedly went to her parents'' place and started living there. In the meanwhile, a male child was born out of the wedlock. Subsequently in the month of September-2000, the appellant went with the child to her parents'' place and started living there. Thereafter she did not return to the matrimonial house till the filing of M.C. No. 15/2001 i.e., till the filing of the petition for conjugal rights. It is further case of the respondent that the appellant herein did not return to matrimonial house inspite of several requests by the respondent and his family members. Since the respondent/original petitioner wanted to live with his wife, he filed the petition for restitution of conjugal rights. He has also sought for alternative prayer of decree of divorce.

The petition was opposed by the appellant herein. According to her, prior to the marriage, it was decided before the elders that the appellant also should complete her Master''s Degree inasmuch as the respondent had already completed Master''s Degree and that both together should practice. However after the marriage, the respondent developed a strange attitude that appellant should be the housewife only. Subsequently, the appellant herein came to know that her husband has not completed Master''s Degree in Medicine. It is further alleged by the appellant that the atmosphere in the family of her husband is entirely strange; the elder sister of the respondent herein who was also in service (still unmarried) was the Commander in the family; the family members of the respondent were not happy with the appellant living with the respondent in the matrimonial house and they used to tease her; the firewood was being used for cooking purpose in the house of the respondent, whereas the appellant was born and brought up in a highly sophisticated family; despite the same, she adopted herself to the practise of her husband''s family. But the family members of the respondent never allowed her to live happily in the matrimonial house. It is further case of the appellant that the respondent has developed inferiority complex inasmuch as he has not completed the Master''s Degree and that the appellant was doing Master''s Degree. It is further pleaded by the appellant that she is ready and willing to go to the house of her husband. However, she should be allowed to continue her studies and to look after the child.

Both the parties have lead their evidence. The Court below having found that the appellant is ready and willing to go to the house of her husband, concluded that there is no hurdle for the appellant to join her husband. Looking to the material on record, we are of the opinion that the difference of opinion between the appellant and respondent is very minor in nature. To save the institution of marriage, both the spouses will have to forget their differences, if any. There is no major controversy between the two. It appears the problem is of ego.

R.W. 1 has admitted that there was a attempt for conciliation and it has not been succeeded. However she has specifically pleaded in her statement of objections that she is ready and willing to go back to her matrimonial house and to lead marital life with the respondent after completion of her education. R.W. 1 (Wife) in the cross-examination has admitted that her Ph.D. course will be completed within 3 to 4 months. The impugned order is passed on 30.6.2008. We are now in the year 2014. By this time, the education of the appellant must have been completed and she must have even completed her Ph.D. Course. It is also admitted by R.W. 2 that the appellant herein had told him that she would join her husband after completion of Ph.D.

Since we find that this is a fit case for grant of decree for restitution of conjugal rights and as there are no serious differences between the appellant and the respondent, the trial Court is justified in allowing the petition for restitution of conjugal rights. Both the parties are doctors. The wife seems to have completed her Ph.D. also. If both of them live together and practice together, it will be good for their family as well as to the society at large.

During the course of arguments, it is submitted by the learned advocate for the appellant that even now appellant is ready to join her husband. Be that as it may. Having regard to the totality of facts and circumstances, this is not a fit case to interfere in the decree for conjugal rights.

Hence the appeal fails and the same stands dismissed.