NEETU RAWAT Vs. UMESH RAWAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Appeal is directed against the impugned judgment dtd. 11/1/2021 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun in Original Suit No. 1023 of 2017, whereby the petition preferred by the respondent-husband under Sec. 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act against the appellant-wife was allowed.

(2.) The parties got married on 10/3/2008 according to the Hindu rites and ceremonies. They have one son, who was born on 21/10/2009.

(3.) The case of the respondent-husband is that the appellant left her matrimonial home on 11/11/2017 finally, along with the minor child, and since the appellant did not return to her matrimonial home, the respondent filed the aforesaid petition under Sec. 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act to seek restitution of conjugal rights. The said petition was contested by the appellant by filing a written statement, where she made allegation of cruel treatment meted out to her by the respondent-husband. The respondent filed his replication denying those allegations and re-affirming his averments in his petition under Sec. 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The respondent led his evidence before the Family Court, which was closed on 25/9/2019. Thereafter, the case was fixed for the appellant-wife to lead her evidence. On 2/11/2019, it appears that the appellant was present with her counsel before the Family Court. She endorsed on the order-sheet dtd. 2/11/2019 that in the present case, she does not wish to lead any evidence. This endorsement has been made by the appellant in her own hand and dated as 2/11/19. Consequently, the learned Presiding Judge passed order, which reads 'Case called out. Counsels are present. The respondent has closed her evidence.' The matter was adjourned to 5/1/2020. Thereafter, it appears from the order-sheet placed on record that the matter was adjourned time and again till the passing of the impugned judgment proceeding on the basis that the respondent-husband had proved his case by leading his evidence. Pertinently, he had also been cross-examined by the appellant's counsel.