NALINI Vs. RADHAKRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent in R.M.O.P. No. 32 of 1983 on the file of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Trichur, is the appellant in this appeal.

(2.) This arises out of an application filed by the respondent herein who is the husband of the appellant under Sec. 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for a decree against the appellant for restitution of conjugal rights. It was alleged in the petition that the respondent married the appellant in Feb., 1976 at Guruvayur Temple in accordance with the rites of the community, and two children were born out of the said wedlock. The respondent was working in Border Security Force and was posted in Gujarat. The appellant was living in her husband's house and the respondent used to come on leave to his parental house. It was allegged in the petition that the appellants further was insisting that the respondent should go and live in her house during the leave period and that the respondent also should send his salaries to the house of the appellant. While matters stood so, the appellant left the house of the respondent without any reason and went to her parents house with the children and continued to be in that house. When the respondent arrived at home on leave on 5-3-1983, he came to know about this and went to the house of the appellant in order to bring her and children back to his house. The respondent alleged that though the appellant was ready to go with him, her brother and father prevented her from going along with the respondent. According to him the next day also he went to her house, but he was not allowed to see the appellant or the children. Apprehending that she was detained by her father and brother ; the respondent filed an application before the judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kunnamkulam and upon a warrant issued from there, the appellant and the children were produced in that Court. However, the appellant stated before the Court that she has not detained by anybody and that she did not want to go along with the respondent. According to the respondent it was not out of her free Will that she made such a statement and it was at the instigation of her father and brother that she stated so. The respondent sent notice to her commanding her to go to his house and live there, but the appellant sent reply raising untestable contentions. He alleged that there are no justification reasons for the appellant to live separately and he is entitled to get restitution of conjugal rights.

(3.) In the written statement filed by the appellant she repudiated the contentions raised in the petition and stated that there was no basis for the allegations that her father and brother misbehaved towards the respondent and detained the appellant. She also denied the statement of the respondent that he came to her house on 5-3-1983 and 6-3-1983. She stated that it was true that the respondent filed a petition before the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Kunnamkulam and upon a warrant issued by that Court she and her children were produced before the Court. According to her, she stated the truth before the Court and therefore the petition filed by the respondent was dismissed. The appellant also alleged that the respondent had no love and affection towards her and that her life with him was very painful and unbearable. She also stated that after the marriage, the respondent took the appellant to the place of his employment for some time and thereafter he left the appellant in his parental house, but the members of his parental house were behaving in a cruel manner towards her. Her requirements were not met and in July, 1981 she was ousted from the respondent's house and thereafter she went and lived in her parental house. She also alleged that on several occasions, the respondent manhandled her. He also informed her through a letter that he did not want to continue the marital relationship. In these circumstances she averred that the petition was without any bonafides and was liable to be dismissed.