SHANTI DEVI Vs. BALBIR SINGH GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the judgment of V. S. Deshpande J. whereby the judgment of an Additional District Judge dismissing the application for restitution of conjugaS rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act 25 of 1955 filed by Balbir Singh Gupta, respondent No, I, was set aside and a decree for restitution of conjugal rights was passed in his favour against Shrimati Shanti Devi who has appealed against the same and is appellant before us The appellant Smt. Shanti Devi and her husband Shri Balbir Singh Gupta are Hindus by religion and the marriage between the two was solemnised at Hissar on 16-2-1955 according to Hindu rites. It appears that before the appellant's marriage, her elder sister was married to respondent No. 1 and she died about three months before this marriage. There was a child from the first marriage who has, however, died since then. The parties lived together and a daughter, who is now living with the appellant, was born to them. After their marriage they resided together at Viney Nagar. New Delhi, till on. 11-5-1960 in pursuance of a warrant issued under S. 100 Criminal Procedure Code by a New Delhi Magistrate, the appellant was recovcied from the house of respondent No. 1 in Viney Nagar.

(2.) On 25-7-1960 the present application for restitution of conjugal rights was filed by respondent No. 1 on the ground that the appellant had, without reasonable excuse, withdrawn from his society at the instigation of her father, who was impleaded as respondent No. 2 in the said application and has also been made to join in this appeal as respondent No. 2.

(3.) The application was resisted by the appellant and her father who had put in a joint written statement wherein it was alleged that respondent No. 1 had started paying attention to a girl in Viney Nagar whom he wanted to marry and adopted all sorts of means to torture the appellant and practised cruelty on her. A stage was reached when respondent No. 1 even threatened to do away with her life- She sent urgent messages and letters to her father to get her out of the control and confinement of respondent No. 1 and that is why the Magistrate was moved for issuing a warrant under Section 100 Criminal Procedure Code.