ROOPA Vs. MRUTYUNJAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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.

(2.) 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.

(3.) 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.