RAJ MOHAMMED Vs. SAEEDA AMINA BEGUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal arises out of the suit instituted in the year 1969 on the file of the Munsiff, Raichur, by the plaintiff for a decree fox restitution of conjugal rights against the defendant.

(2.) The parties to the suit are Muslims. The plaintiff, who is the husband, is a resident of Raichur. He took the defendant in marriage at Hyderabad on the 17th of May, 1963. Thereafter the defendant came over to Raichur and lived with the plaintiff. By Deer 1966 two children were born to them. In Deer 1966 the defendant left for Hyderabad. The case of the plaintiff was that she had gone away to Hyderabad since he was not willing to leave ' his parents and shift hims,It to Hyderabad. The defendant's case was that some time after the marriage, the plaintiff began to make demands on her father to provide him with a motor cycle, a gold ring etc, and as the said demands were not complied with, he began to ill-treat her. On coming to know of it, her father came to Raichur and took her away to Hyderabad. She did not thereafter return to Raichur. In May 1969, the defendant issued a notice to the plaintiff calling upon him to pay her and her children maintenance. The said notice was replied by the plaintiff. On realising that the defendant was about to sue, the plaintiff issued a notice on 2-9-1969 calling upon the defendant, to rejoin him at Raichur. As the defendant was not willing to do so, the plaintiff instituted the suit for restitution of conjugal rights, out of which this second appeal arises.

(3.) The trial Court was of the opinion that the plaintiff had fil-treated the defendant during her stay at Raichur and that therefore the defendant was entitled to stay away from her husband. It accordingly dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the decree of the trial Court, the plaintiff filed an appeal before the learned Civil Judge, Raichur. Although he was of the opinion that the defendant had not established that the plaintiff had treated her with such cruelty as to cause reasonable apprehension in her mind that it would be harmful to her to live with the plaintiff, he found that the defendant was justified in staying away from her husband. He there fore dismissed the appeal. Hence this second appeal. The defendant is absent and unrepresented.