BHAWANA HINGORANI ALIAS SAVITA Vs. MANOHAR LAL HINGORANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under the Hindu Marriage Act, 25 of 1955, hereafter referred to as 'the Act' has been filed by the wife against the judgment and decree of Mr. H.C. Gowl, Additional District Judge, Delhi dated 28th Sept., 1972, by which he was granted a decree for restitution of conjugal rights in favour of the husband against the wife.

(2.) The material facts of the care are that the parties were married on 13th Sept., 1969 and they had a girt borne on 13th July, 1970, but before she birth of the child, on 6th Dec., 1969 the wife left we house of the husband for her parent, house in comply of her uncle on the pretext of making a routine visit to her parents. Admittedly, since then the never returned to the matrimonial home of the husband. On 24th Dec., 1969, the wife also wrote a letter (Ex. P 1) to the effect that she was not willing to return to the house as she had been maltreated. The husband filed the petition under section 9 of the act for restitution of conjugal rights on 5th Oct., 1970 on the allegations (after stating the formal facts mentioned above), that the parties lived at the house in Rajouri Gardens till 6th Dec., 1969, that the wife left for her parents house in company of her uncle Prabhu Ochani on the pretext of making a routine visit to her parents, that it was arranged that she would return to the husband on the following day and her uncle would bring her back, that the wife did not return as promised, that on 8th Dec., 1969 the father of the wife and her uncle explained to the father of the husband that the wife was slightly indisposed and would return on the following day, but she failed to return as intimated and then the husband made a telephone call to the wife and the father of that ode stated that he wanted to discuss the matter first; that on the following day the husband paid a visit to the wife, but without any justification or tenon or any provocation the father of the wife In the presence of the wife behaved in a most indecent manner uttering filthy words and that he categorically stated that there was no question of the wife returning to the house of the husband. The husband further alleged that he wrote a letter to the wife pleading that she must not break the home to which she replied by a letter dated 24th Dec., 1969 in which she wrongly refuted to come back and made unfounded allegations of maltreatment. The husband also stated that on the intention of some members of the biradari s meeting was arranged between the parties, but the wife declined to come to the house of the husband and when the child was born, the wife refused to permit the husband to see the baby and that the wife had withdrawn from the society of the husband without any reason whatsoever and had failed to perform matrimonial obligations. On these grounds the husband claimed a decree for restitution of conjugal rights.

(3.) The petition was contested by the wife. She raised a number of preliminary objections and on merits she alleged that time and again she bad been subjected to physical torture and brutal beating by the husband and the members of his family and the reason for the torture was failure of the wife's father to fulfil the illegal demand to bring dowry and that on the day of occurrence the husband threw the wife out of the house with merely three clothes taking away all the dowry and presents which were given to her by her parents. She denied that her uncle had accompanied her from the husband's house to her parents house. She denied that allegations made by the husband and the meeting in the biradari. She also alleged that the husband was making false allegations of unchastrity, which amounted to cruelty. In the additional pleas, the wife alleged that the husband was in the habit of excessive drinking and he used to give a lot of physical torture and heavy beating to her at the investigation of the parents, who were bent upon turning the wife from the house of the husband on one pretext of the other and that often the husband and the members of his family after giving severe beatings to the wife looked inside the room without giving her food and water and ultimately the husband turned her out of the house even at the time when the wife was in the wage of pregnancy and that she was forced to live with her parents. She has finally averred that the "apprehends that her life will not be safe in the hands of the petitioner and she apprehends that it will be injurious to five with the petitioner and the petitioner is also guilty of the conduct of cruelty of making false charges of unchastity against the respondent. "