Smt. Santosh Kumari vs Rajesh Kumar

Gokal Chand Mital, J.—The parties were married on 4th May, 1984. In January, 1985, the husband came to Court with a petition u/s 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for restitution of conjugal rights with the pleas that after marriage they stayed together for 10/12 days and, thereafter the wife went to her parent''s place. When he wanted to bring her back, her parents put a condition that they will send her only if he takes up a separate residence from his parents. In spite of taking a panchayat she did not come. It is then pleaded that on 9.9.1984 from the wife''s side a Panchayat had come and in pursuance of the settlement he brought her back on 16th October, 1984. They lived upto 5-12-1984 when her parents and other relatives came and took her away, and, thereafter she did not join his company.

The wife denied the allegations and pleaded that she was maltreated by the husband and his parents and there was a demand for more dowry. She denied if her husband had come to take her on 16th October, 1984 or she had gone with him as per alleged settlement She blamed the husband for flatly refusing to take her or to keep her and he had threatened to go for second marriage. Her case was that she was turned out of the house much before 12-5-1984.

On the diverse pleas of the parties, the following issues were framed:

Whether the Respondent has withdrawn from the society of the petititioner ?

1-A. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to a decree of restitution of conjugal rights ?

1-B In case issue No. 1 is proved, whether the Respondent is entitled to any permanent alimony, if so to what amount ?

Relief

On the evidence led in the case, the trial Court by judgment and decree dated 1-10-1986, granted decree for restitution of conjugal rights after accepting the evidence led by the husband. This is wife''s appeal.

Reconciliation was tried. The husband was prepared to take her back but the wife was not prepared to live with the husband at any cost as she apprehended danger to her life. Rather she gave her willingness for divorce. This is how the reconciliation failed.

The husband paid Rs 2000/- in Court to Shri Rajan Gupta, Advocate, for the wife towards the maintenance pendente lite Shri Rajan Gupta, Advocate, admitted having received Rs. 800/- earlier out of Court, towards the litigation expenses.

After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record I am of the view that there is no scope for interference in this appeal. From record, I do not find if there is any serious dispute between the parties. It is difficult to decide whether apprehension of the wife about danger to her life is genuine or not on the peculiar facts of this case. Since wife has not been able to bring out something against the husband, which may justify her living away from the matrimonial home, the husband cannot be denied the relief of restitution of conjugal rights. Rather the upholding of the decree would facilitate the wife in getting the decree of divorce after the expiry of one year from the decree of restitution of conjugal rights, as she wants divorce.

For the reasons recorded above, this appeal is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.