BHAGYASHRI PRAKASH PATIL Vs. PRAKASH SADASHIV PATIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is preferred by the appellant wife against the Judgment and Decree dated 21st of February, 1993 passed by Family Court at Pune, Court Room No. 3 in Petition A-No. 456 of 1991. By the aforesaid judgment and decree the trial court has granted the decree of restitution of conjugal rights u/s 9 of Hindu Marriage Act. Few facts which are necessary for the disposal of this petition are as under :-

(2.) THE Respondent in this case is the husband of the Appellant (Original Petitioner. Respondent (Org. Petitioner) has filed the petition for restitution of conjugal rights on 21st of July, 1991. It was contended by the petitioner-husband that the marriage between the petitioner-husband and Respondent wife (hereinafter referred to as "Petitioner and "Respondent" for sake of brevity) was solemni-sed on 28.2.1990. After the said marriage the petitioner and Respondent-wife went to honey-moon and returned from honey-moon on 14.3.1990. Thereupon on 17.3.90 Respondent-wife went back to her parents house at Baroda alongwith her brother and petitioner brought her back to Pune on 5.4.1990. On 30th of May, 1990 petitioner received a letter that parents of Respondent-wife intended to come to Pune for attending some functions and also for considering certain matrimonial proposals for their son Lalit Kumar. Thereafter some-where in the month of June, 1991, parents of Respondent wife came to Pune at the residence at Model Colony where petitioner was residing with other members of the joint family. Since the said premises were not sufficient to accom-modate the guest, petitioner shifted alongwith the parents of his respondent-wife to Sahakar Nagar.

(3.) PETITIONER thereafter went to Baroda on 9.7.1990 for attending obsequial ceremony and was there till 14.7.1990. During his stay he also contacted his mother-in-law and informed her about the obstinate attitude of respondent-wife. However, his mother-in-law informed him that let respondent should stay at her place for sometime so that in the meantime she will try to persuade her daughter. Thereafter on 14.7.1990 petitioner left for Pune.