MUKESHKUMAR ISHWARLAL BHATT Vs. KAILASHBEN MUKESHKUMAR BHATT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal arises against the order dated 10.11.2009 passed by the Family Court in Execution Petition No.30 of 2009, whereby direction has been given to the appellant-husband to pay amount of Rs.6000/- per month over and above the maintenance amount of Rs.6000/- per month, which has been ordered under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

(2.) The short facts of the case appears to be that the respondent-wife had preferred H.M.P.No.222 of 1996 before the City Civil & Sessions Court, Ahmedabad and in the said petition, vide judgment and decree dated 30.4.1999, following order was passed:- The opponent is hereby directed to allow the petitioner to reside or to stay with him and fulfill all his obligations including conjugal rights of his wife. No order as to costs. Decree withdrawn accordingly

(3.) It is the case of the respondent-wife that in spite of the decree,the compliance is not made by the appellant-husband. Therefore, she filed Execution Petition No.30 of 2009 before the Family Court under Order XXI Rule 32 read with Rule 33 of Civil Procedure Code. Initially, the Executing Court issued notice. In response thereto, the reply has been filed by appellant-husband contending inter alia that there was a setback suffered by his parents and it is his case that after the restitution of conjugal rights decree, there is no relationship of husband and wife. Therefore, he is entitled to divorce. Further aspect is that when it was put to the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-husband by this Court as to whether he is desirous to comply with the decree of restitution of conjugal rights by allowing the respondent-wife to stay with him but the answer was in negative. It also deserves to be recorded that the Family Court has also recorded at para 6 as under: It shows that the judgment-debtor is a person who is not intended to obey the order of the decree of the Court and hence he should pay compensation for the same. Ultimately, the Family Court has passed the above referred order dated 10.11.2009, which is impugned in the present appeal.