DAMAYANATI Vs. RAMDHAN SINGH DHANNU SINGH CHUNGDE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the wife is directed against a decree for restitution of conjugal rights. The respondent -husband's case was that the parties were married in about 1971 -72 at Akola and they started residing together in the respondent's house at Somthana. The appellant came from a rich family and the respondent was poor and had to work in his lands. According to the respondent, the appellant was not accustomed to doing domestic work and this led to quarrels between her and his mother. About a year after the marriage upon the insistence of the appellant the respondent started residing at Akola. The appellant had one son Sachin and latter a daughter Malika. Their third child was Manoj. Manoj was struck with an ailment while the respondent was away and was removed after his return to a hospital, but he died. According to the respondent, the appellant was mentally disturbed due to loss of her son and blamed him for not caring for the child. One morning he discovered that the appellant had left with the children. He went to the house of the appellant's parents and asked her to return, but she refused. Another attempt by his father and brother to bring her back also did not succeed. The appellant thereafter brought a proceeding under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and obtained an ex parte order of maintenance against him. The respondent thereafter filed the present suit for restitution of conjugal rights on 10th August, 1983.

(2.) THE appellant while denying the adverse allegations made by the respondent contended that the respondent used to treat her cruelly and did not care for her whenever she was ailing. In May, 1973 while she had suffered from typhoid she was reached to the house of her parents at Akola. At that time she was two months' pregnant, but none came to enquire about her. She had an abortion in July, 1973 and returned to the house of the respondent with her brother. The respondent disbelieved her version that there was a natural abortion and started illtreating her. She had not been sent to the house of her parents for Dewali of 1973. though her brother had come to take her. In September, 1974 the respondent reached her to her father's house as she had to undergo an operation for tonsils. When her father reached her to the respondent's house after Diwali, the respondents told her father that he did not want the appellant and demanded a divorce.

(3.) IN February, 1975 she was not sent for attending the wedding of her brother Baldeosingh. There was an incident at Akola during the wedding when the respondent threatened to kill the appellant and asked for a divorce. She resided with her father till February, 1976 and went of her own accord to the respondent's house. She was not even allowed to attend the wedding of her sister Durga and brother Umedsingh. In January, 1981; according the the appellant, the respondent sent her to the house of her parents and refused to take her when she was reached to his house. She was driven away from the house by the respondent on January 20, 1981. The appellant contended that she apprehended danger at the hands of the respondent and as the respondent had not provided for the maintenance of the appellant and the children, she brought a proceeding under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for maintenance and obtained an order on 19th March, 1983 for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 150 per month for each of the children and at Rs. 200/ - for herself. When the respondent received the summons for the proceeding under Section 128 of the Code, he appeared before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, but thereafter as a counterblast filed this petition for restitution of conjugal rights.