DEEPA SUYAL Vs. DINESH CHANDRA SUYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A suit for restitution of conjugal rights filed by the respondent husband has been decreed by the court below by its Judgement dated 13-11-1987 against the appellant. The appellant is the wife.

(2.) The husband's case before the court below was that he was married to the appellant on 5-12-1985. After few days of their marriage the appellant is said to have been called by her father and attend some religious functions at her father's house and she in pursuance of the said call had left for the father's house and did not return to the husband's house despite many requests made by the respondent-husband. From 11-12-1985 the appellant is said to be staying at her father's house and is since then living separately from her husband. It is also alleged that the appellant has secured some employment in C.R.P. Force. According to the respondent it was not necessary for the appellant to seek appointment because the respondent was ready to maintain the appellant and give her all comforts in his house. Seeking a job in C.R.P.F. has, therefore, affected the husband and his family's dignity. Even after having secured a job by the appellant the husband has again invited the appellant to live with him because he did not want the matrimonial relations of the parties to get affected in any manner. The appellant is said to have not agreed to this proposal and has left the company of the respondent and deprived the husband of her company. The appellant is said to have deprived the respondent of her company without any justification and has refused to discharge her matrimonial obligations. The husband in his plaint has alleged that he suffered mental and physical torture by the conduct of the appellant as she has no reason or rhyme to live separately from the respondent and has refused to his fold despite repeated requests. Therefore, a decree for restitution of conjugal rights was sought.

(3.) The appellant appears to have presented herself before the court below through an Advocate and filed written statement. The appellant has admitted that she had gone to her father's house on 11-12-1985 and did not return to her husband on account of the circumstances created by the respondent's family. It was alleged by the appellant that the respondent himself was responsible for not giving due respect to the appellant and was levelling incorrect allegations against her. It is further stated that the respondent and his family members were pressurising the appellant not to serve in the C.R.P.F. The husband was trying to persuade the appellant to give up the C.R.P.F. service so as to make her dependent on him and see that the appellant suffered financial insecurity throughout the life. It is stated by the appellant that she cannot give up the job which she had taken up and live with the husband permanently. It is a matter of pride for the husband to get a job in C.R.P.F. and the respondent-husband should also consider this matter in the similar way. The respondent is said to have lost his right by his own conduct to ask the appellant to live with him. In the additional pleas the appellant has stated that right from 6-12-1985 the respondent has been making accusations against the appellant and all other educated girls. On 7-12-1985 the appellant had gone to attend the marriage ceremony of her brother. The respondent also had attended the function. When the respondent wanted to come back to his home he asked the appellant that she could stay at her father's house and come back along with a scooter and on their way to the respondent's house the respondent is said to have told the appellant that it is strange that her five brothers cannot purchase a scooter for him. By this the appellant wants to make out a case that the respondent had demanded dowry from the appellant. Thereafter the respondent is said to have shown a conduct which was unbecoming of a Hindu husband. The respondent persuaded the appellant not to take up the job and the family of the respondent demanded a scooter in dowry and thereafter the appellant and her father thought that it was not safe for the appellant to live in the house of the respondent. The appellant has stated that she has taken up the job only with a view to purchase scooter for the appellant so as to save her marital life as also avoid the torture suffered by her in her parental house.