SURESH KANTA Vs. PREM NARAIN AHUJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal on behalf of the wife under section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1958 (hereinafter called 'the Act') is directed against the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge dated November 30, 1979 for restitution of conjugal rights in favour of the respondent husband. The appellant and the respondent were married according to Hindu rites at Delhi on May 6, 1968. The appellant was employed as a teacher while the respondent was employed as Junior Engineer in Central Public works Department at Delhi on a transferable post. The respondent alleges that at time of marriage it was agreed that the appellant would leave her job and join him in case of his transfer out side Delhi. After the solemnisation of the marriage parties lived at houses bearing municipal number 1439/1452, Gali Murli Ban Wali, Bazar Chitli Qabar, Delhi and they went to Nanital for sometime. Sometime in July 1968 the appellant started insisting upon the respondent to live separately from his parents. He did not agree, being the only son of his parents. The appellant thereafter started misbehaving with the respondent and his relations i.e. his parents and sisters. She started fighting on trifles without any justification. The respondent and his relations, it is said, tolerated her behaviour. In April 1971 the respondent was transferred to Calcutta where he joined duty on April 12, 1971. The appellant was requested sometimes in June 1971 to resign and join him at Calcutta but the respondent was told that she was in a family way and would join him after delivery. The appellant gave birth to a daughter on October 15, 1971 but she still refused to join the respondent at Calcutta? Respondent's sister shifted to Calcutta in May 1972. Appellant it appears also visited the respondent at Calcutta for sometime during school vacation. She however did not resign and did not shift to Calcutta. The respondent thus remained at Calcutta and the appellant in Delhi. In May 1973 respondent's mother fell seriously ill. He came to Delhi to look after his mother in.June 1973. It is alleged that the appellant was requested to attend her mother-in-law but she avoided. The respondent's mother died in July 1973.

(2.) Marrige of appellant's brother was fixed for October 1. 1973. The appellant, it is alleged with a view to attend her brother's marriage took away all jewellery and clothes from the house of her father-in-law and on September 20, 1973 she went to her parents' house to attend the marriage of her brother. The respondent came down from Calcutta on September 30, 1973 to attend the marriage. The respondent and his relations also attended the marriage on October 1, 1973 but thereafter the appellant never returned to the matrimonial home. The respondent in his petition for restitution of conjugal rights also alleges that the appellant did not return without any excuse. In August 1974 the respondent was transferred back to Delhi but the appellant did not join him. Efforts were made by the relations and friends for reconciliation but without any result. The respondent sent a notice dated October 30, 1974 requesting her to return and avoid unhappiness in life. The appellant however did not respond, and sent a reply dated November 19, 1974. Finding no response from the appellant, the respondent filed the present petition under section 9 of the Act on May 12, 1975 alleging the said facts and requesting for a decree for restitution of conjugal rights.

(3.) The appellant in her written statement denies the alleged agreement before marriage regarding leaving her teaching job and joining him at his place of posting if and when he was to be transferred from Delhi. She alleges that she never desired the respondent to live separately from his parents and have a separate house. She says that their treatment towards her was taunting, unbearable and insulting. She says that their behaviour was abusive. She was used to live in large accomodation but she continued to reside in one small room without bath or kitchen in the house of the respondent alongwith her parents-in-law and grown up sister with no privacy or partition at all. She further says that she was abused for not talking to respondent's sister during a cinema show, that she was not allowed to use the telephone to talk to her parents, that she had been giving her entire salary to her father-in-law and used to get only Rs. 5o.00 as her pocket money. She further says that the respondent was visiting Delhi while posted at Calcutta but he never spent any amount on her or their daughter and that he had been ill treating and neglecting her. She further alleges that during her pregnancy no domestic servant was engaged and she was made to do all house hold jobs such as cooking, washing, sweeping house before and after school hours and that she lost weight due to constant mental ill treatment and physical torture. It is also alleged that the respondent never asked her to resign and join him at Calcutta. The reason given is that the respondent and his parents never wanted loss of her salary. She also says that she attended her mother-in law while she was ill but she died and after her death the respondent, his father and sister became more abusive and insulting. She also says that the ill treatment by the respondent and his relations caused reasonable apprehension in her mind that it would be injurious and harmful for her to stay with the respondent any longer. She denies that she took away jewellery and clothes while going to attend the marriage of her brother. She however admits that the respondent attended her brother's marriage an October I, 1973. Her further allegation is that the respondent wanted her parents to give him costly present at the time of her brother's marriage but she refused. On account of the above mentioned behaviour and demands of the respondent she admits she did not return to the matrimonial home. She further alleges that the respondent has not been maintaining her and their daughter since her birth, that his behaviour has always been cruel, that after exchange of notices there was a meeting between the parties in the presence of her father-in-law and other friends. She says that in the meeting it was agreed that the respondent would take a separate house on rent, withdraw the notice dated October 30, 1974 and would not initiate litigation, that all jewellery would be kept in a separate locker to be operated by her and the respondent and that he would deposit Rs. 15,000.00 on account of her probable savings out of her salary for six years which she used to give to her father-in-law in a fixed deposit account in joint names i.e in the name of the appellant, the respondent and their daughter. The appellant further says that the respondent avoided to implement the said agreement.