VAISHALI KALMEGH Vs. PRAVEEN KALMEGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 against the judgment and decree dated 25.9.2010 passed by the II Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg, in Civil Suit No.31-A/09, whereby the application filed by the appellant/plaintiff under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for grant of decree for restitution of conjugal rights, has been rejected.

(2.) FACTS not in dispute are that marriage between the parties was solemnized on 23rd May, 2006 at Durg as per the Hindu rites and ceremonies and out of their wedlock, on 21.4.2007 a male child was born. All other facts are disputed.

(3.) THE respondent/husband, in his reply to the aforesaid application, denying all the adverse allegations, has stated that the appellant/wife used to misbehave with his family members and threaten to implicate them in a false case. While he was going to Uttaranchal, he had asked her to stay at her matrimonial home, but she went to her maternal home. On 18.10.2006, his father had requested the father of the appellant on telephone to settle the dispute, but father of the appellant did not agree and by calling back the appellant from her matrimonial home, aggravated the dispute. During counseling proceedings on 8.2.2007, the appellant was advised to behave properly with her in-laws, but even after that there was no improvement in her conduct. Due to this adamant and quarrelsome nature of the appellant, the respondent had to live in a separate rented house, where also she used to behave in an unusual manner and once she had even tried to commit suicide. This incident was narrated before the State Woman Commission and also to the Psychiatrist. The psychiatrist advised her for medical examination, but she refused for the same and quarreled. On 11.7.2007 after he had gone for his duties, the appellant ran away from the house. On return, when he found the house locked, he informed the State Woman Commission about the same and enquired from his in-laws, but they did not give any satisfactory reply. However, on the third day, the appellant contacted Smt. Hemlata Sahu, the Chairperson of the Commission on telephone, and informed her that she wants maintenance and does not want to live with the respondent/husband.