Smt. Surjit Kaur vs Shri Ujjal Singh

J.M. Tandon, J.—Ujjal Singh, respondent, having obtained a decree for restitution of conjugal rights u/s 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, against Surjit Kaur, appellant, from the Court of Shri Niranjan Singh, Subordinate Judge 1st Class, Bhatinda, dated 1st October, 1977, the latter has come up in appeal.

The respondent belongs to village Mehma Sarja, Tehsil and District Bhatinda. After marriage the parties lived in that village. In December, 1975, the respondent filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights against the appellant alleging that she had withdrawn from his society without any reasonable excuse since 21st July, 1975, and she was living at her parents house at Faridkot since then.

The appellant in her written statement said that she was serving as a teacher since 1974 and was posted in village Sadik, whereas the respondent was also a teacher and was posted at village Deon. They cohabited together in village Mehma Sarja during vacation and also met each other at Faridkot frequently. She offered to perform marital duties but without leaving her service. She further alleged that in May or June, 1975, the respondent had demanded a loan of Rs. 10,000/-from her brother Ikattar Singh for construction of a house. Ikattar Singh did not oblige with the result that the respondent got offended and withdrew from her society since June, 1975.

The trial Court framed the following issues:--

Whether the respondent (now appellant) has withdrawn from the society of the petitioner (now respondent) for some reasonable cause.

Relief.

The finding under the issue having been recorded against the appellant, the trial Court granted a decree for restitution of conjugal rights to the respondent against the appellant. Hence the present appeal.

The appellant is admittedly living at her parents house in Faridkot She is working as a School teacher at Sadik. The respondent is a resident of village Mehma Sarja and is working as a teacher at village Deon. The appellant produced her brother Ikattar Singh, who stated that the respondent had demanded a loan of Rs. 10,000/- for construction of a house because he had separated from his parents. He did not oblige. The appellant herself made a statement to that effect. The trial Court did not believe the evidence of the appellant and rightly so. The respondent in his statement denied that he ever demanded a loan of Rs. 10, 000/- from Ikattar Singh or he was ever in need of it for construction of a house. It was not proved that the respondent had separated from his parents and he needed a separate house. It, therefore, remains unsubstantiated that the respondent was in need of a separate house. It is also not proved that Ikattar Singh was financially capable to advance a loan of Rs. 10,000/-. The appellant, apparently, had advanced this plea to justify her living separately from her husband.

The respondent in his cross-examination stated that he was prepared to keep the appellant provided she gave up her service. The appellant is not agreeable to this proposal. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the respondent has made the offer with mala fide intentions. He wants her to leave her service and thereby make her helpless with sadistic designs. The respondent is employed as a teacher. His family owns some land. There is nothing in the evidence to suggest that he is not in a financial position to support his wife. The alleged apprehension of the appellant about the respondent having sadistic designs against her seems to be baseless. It was held in Smt. Kailash Wati v. Ayodhia Parkash (1977) 79 P.L.R. 217 (F.B.), that on general principles the husband acting bonafide was entitled in law to determine the locus of the matrimonial home. This general principle was made subject to qualifications that the demand of the husband was not mala fide and was not merely to spite the wife. In the instant case the demand of the respondent that the appellant should live with him at his house after leaving service does not appear to be in the spirit of spite against her. There is nothing to doubt his bona fides as well. The trial Court has, therefore, rightly found that the appellant has withdrawn from the society of the respondent without reasonable cause. The finding of the trial Court under the issue against the appellant is affirmed.

In the result the present appeal fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs.