CHINNAPERUMAL NAICKER Vs. MARIYAYEE AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIN Second Appeal is by a husband against whom his wife the respondent, had obtained a decree for restitution of conjugal rights on a petition filed by the respondent under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, before the learned Subordinate Judge of Tiruchirapalli.

(2.) THE appellant married the respondent in 1954 according to Hindu rites and they were living together as husband and wife till 1963. Now, according to the respondent, in the year 1963, there was a big fire accident in Uppiliar Street, Denanallur, Tiruchirapalli and the hut in which she was living with the appellant was also burnt down with the result that they had no place to live in and hence her husband, the appellant, asked her to go and live with her parents and promised to take her back after reconstructing the house and hence she, the respondent, went to her parents' house and was living there But the appellant did not make good his promise to take her back even though he put up a thatched house and began to live there and the appellant has been keeping a concubine by name Angammal in that house and at her instigation and on account of her influence he refused to take her back (the respondent) in spite of mediation by certain persons and in February, 1963, the appellant repaid to her a sum of Rs. 200 which she had borrowed from third parties and lent to the appellant for reconstructing the house and the appellant made her affix her thumb impression on a blank paper representing that it was required as a voucher to evidence the repayment of that money and after obtaining her thumb impression, the appellant deserted her completely and she issued a notice to him on 17 -10 -1969, to which the appellant sent a reply containing false allegations and stating that the marriage between them had been dissolved before a panchayat in accordance with the custom of their caste.

(3.) THE learned District Judge found that the appellant had made reckless allegations against his wife in the notice Ex. A -5 to the effect that she was living in illicit intimacy with known and unknown persons and was living with one Ramaswami but had not substantiated those allegations and it was also brought out in evidence that the appellant was living with one Angammal on whom he settled his property as per Ex. A -1 and hence the respondent had justifiable reasons for living away from her husband. He has also referred to the willingness expressed by the appellant in court to live with his wife. All these, according to him, constitute sufficient reasons for the wife to live away from her husband and he therefore held that the respondent was entitled to a decree for restitution of conjugal rights.