The National Insurance Company Ltd. vs Ravi & Others

Present appeal under Section 19 of the

Family Courts Act, 1984 read with Section 28 of the

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 at the instance of

defendant/wife is directed against the judgment and

decree dated 04.09.2006 passed by the Principal

Judge, Family Court, Bhopal in RCS No.10-A/2006.

Parties are referred to as they were before

the Family Court.

The application under Section 9 of the

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was instituted by the

plaintiff/husband seeking a decree for restitution of

conjugal rights, pleading that he is a business man

having a jewelery shop in joint ownership with his elder

brother, whereas the defendant/wife is working in the

Reserve Bank of India at M.P. Nagar, Bhopal. He has

further pleaded that marriage between the parties was

solemnized on 21.04.2003, according to the Hindu

rites and customs at Jaipur. After entering into the

wedlock, they lived together with the joint family at

Bhopal. However, after some time the defendant/wife

started misbehaving with his family members. She

wanted him to ask for his share in the business and

property and to live separately with her. During this

time, a male child was borne to them but the

defendant did not change ways and due to her

demand for partition and separation, arguments and

quarrels occurred between the parties. The

plaintiff/husband refused to accede to her demand,

therefore, she went to her parents house in December,

2004. The plaintiff has further pleaded that he filed an

application before the Pariwar Paramarsh Kendra on

31.12.2004 but she did not appear there and since

then she has been living with their parents and

withdrawn herself from his society without any

justifiable reason. It is stated that all the efforts made

by the husband as well as by his parents to discuss

with her to find out a solution, went in vain. In this

backdrop, a prayer was made for restitution of

conjugal rights.

The defendant/wife resisted the aforesaid

stand contending interalia that plaintiff and his family

members always ill-treated her. They took her salary

and beat her up when she refused to give. She has

also stated that plaintiff/husband and his family

members pressurized her to take a loan of Rs.10 lacs

from the Bank, which they wanted to use in their

business. She further contended that despite number

of servants employed in the house, she was forced to

work in the house and made to eat stale food. She has

further stated that due to their disagreements, she

went to Jaipur on 02.05.2004 and returned to Bhopal

on 28.10.2004 with her brother. However, she was

forced out of the house on 30.12.2004, hence went to

Jaipur with her brother and mother. She has further

asserted that she wants and ready to live with plaintiff

if he agrees to stay separately from his family and acts

and live according to her wishes.

The learned Family Judge, framed issues

and after considering the oral and documentary

evidence brought on record, came to hold that the

defendant/wife has not been able to prove cruelty and

demand by the plaintiff and his parents and that she

had deserted him without any valid reason and hence,

the husband was entitled for a decree of conjugal

rights.

Being aggrieved by the aforesaid decision of

the Family Court, the wife has preferred the present

appeal.

On behalf of the appellant/wife, it is urged

that the decree for restitution of conjugal rights was

passed on assumption and presumption. The family

Court has not considered that she had suffered

humiliation and hardships at the hands of

plaintiff/husband and his family members and was

thrown out of the house by her in-laws. According to

learned counsel, the Family Court has not appreciated

the said facts in correct prospective and the finding

regarding desertion by her is contrary to the evidence

on record and if she is forced to reside in the the joint

family alongwith her in-laws, her son''s future will be

spoiled.

Learned counsel for the respondent/

husband, on the other hand, submits that in the facts

and circumstances of the case, the court below has

rightly passed the decree.

We have heard the learned counsel for the

parties at length and perused the record.

P.W.-1, husband in his evidence has stated

that he was living in a joint family alongwith his

parents, brother and sister, even prior to the marriage

and their business of jewelery shop is also joint. He

has stated that the defendant/wife wanted him to seek

partition of family property and business and stay

independently with her in a separate house. He has

stated that any partition of family business will not

only effect the name and reputation of their business

but will also harm it. It has been further stated that

due to disagreement between them, the wife went to

Jaipur in May, 2004 and come back in October, 2004,

after five months, thereafter, in December, 2004, she

again fought with him on the same issue and after

calling her brother, left the matrimonial house on

30.12.2004 alongwith her brother.

These facts are not denied by the

defendant/wife (D.W.-1), on the contrary she had

admitted and corroborated that she left the

matrimonial house on 30.12.2004 as, the

plaintiff/husband has refused to live away from his

family. D.W.-1 wife has also admitted that she was

dropped to and picked up from her work place by the

plaintiff.

It is borne out of the record that the

defendant/wife is living separately from her husband

since December, 2004, for the reason that

plaintiff/husband did not accede to her demand of

partition and living separately. It is also established

from the record that in February, 2005, she got allotted

a govt. quarter/house in her name at Bhopal and

without informing the husband started living there. It is

also evident from the statement of the wife that the

husband had made efforts to resolve the dispute. She

has admitted that she does not want to live in joint

family but agreeable to live with her husband in a

separate house and refused the suggestion of the

court to go with her husband. It is clear from the above

that the wife is not prepared to go back to her

matrimonial house. There is no cogent and reliable

evidence that there was cruelty and demand or

pressure made on her for taking loan by the husband

or his family members. Whereas, the husband has

been able to prove that the wife has deserted him

without reasonable cause.

Under the circumstances, the trial Court has

not committed any illegality in passing the decree of

restitution for conjugal rights.

In view of the peculiar facts and

circumstances of the case, the decree for conjugal

rights is hereby affirmed and the appeal is accordingly

dismissed.