HARI RAM Vs. MAHARANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal arises out of a petition filed by Hari Ram appellant against his wife, Smt. Maharani, under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for restitution of conjugal rights. The parties were married at Delhi on 24-4-1955 and lived together as husband and wife till 10-2-1956. On 5-3-1956, a daughter was born to them in Saint Stephen's Hospital at Delhi. The petition was filed on 21-9-1960. It is alleged in the petition that on 10.2. 1956, the respondent left the petitioner's house on the pretext of visiting her parents and took away her ornaments and clothes ; that about a month after the birth of the daughter the petitioner and his father visited the house of her father and asked her to accompany the petitioner, but she avoided to come ; and that after that also several efforts had been made by the petitioner and his parents, but of no avail. In the written statement, the respondent pleaded that the treatment of the petitioner and his parents towards the respondent, had been very cruel ; that she was severly beaten, because the petitioner and his parents were dissatisfied with the dowry brought by the respondent ; that the respondent did not take away any ornaments ; that she was turned out by the petioner and his parents in wearing apparel ; that the petitioner and his parents wanted to avoid expenses in connection with the birth of the child ; and that she apprehanded danger to her life. The following four issues were iramed by the trial court-- (1) Whether the respondent has withdrawn herself from the society of the petitioner without and reasonable cause ? (2) Whether the petitioner is guilty of cruelty towards the respondent ? (3) Whether the petitioner has deserted the respondent ? If so for what effect ? (4) Relief.

(2.) The crux of the problem is whether the respondent withdrew from the society of the petitioner without any reasonable excuse. If it be held that the petitioner was guilty of cruelty towards the respondent, it would obviously follow that she was justified in withdrawing herself from the petitioner's society. I have been taken through the evidence by the learned counsel for the parties. H.N. Tiwari, D. W. I has spoken about the admission of the Respondent 1n the hospital on 4-3-1956 and her remaining there till 19-3-1956. He has also stated that Rs. 332.00 were paid on 19.3 1956 in the name of the respondent. This evidence is relied upon in support of the contention that the petitioner did not even care to look after the Respondent 1n the hospital or foot the bill, which had to be paid by the respondent herself out of her meagre resources. Babu Ram P. W. 3 is a peon of the respondent's sister husband, Jagdish Pershad, an advocate. He stated that he went to the petitioner's house four times to extend; certain invitations to them on behalf of Shri Jagdish Pershad. He has .deposed that on one of such occasions he saw the petitioner's mother-in-law givining a kick to the respondent and abusing her. Ishwar Dayal D. W. 6, brother-in-law of the respondent, also spoke about seeing the petitioner abusing the respondent and saying' that her father did not give descent dowry. Surinder Nath P. W. stated that he had been going to the house of the petitioner and heard the petitioner's mother telling the respondent that she belonged to a mean faimly and her parents did not give any dowry. He also deposed about the petitioner placing a hot electric iron on the hand of the respondent. To corroborate the burning of the hand by placing of hot electric iron. Dr. S.N. Khanna D. W. 2 has been produced, who has deposed that the respondent visited him with a burn on her left hand. The respondent has herself appeard as D. W. 8 and deposed about the various acts of cruelty.

(3.) On behalf of appellant, it has been suggested that the evidence of Babu Ram D. W. 3, should not be believed, as he was unable to given the number of the house or the name of the bazar where it was situate. It is further said that the evidence of Uttam Chand D. W. 4 and Ram Pershad D. W. 5 was not admissible, beacause when the respondent went and told them about the acts of cruelty she was making an admission in her own favour. Moreover, it is alleged to be hearsay evidence. It is, however, contended on behalf of the respondent that the onus is on the husband to prove that the wife left without any just cause and that onus has not been satisfied on the evidence on record.