MEDASETTI SATYANARAYANA Vs. MEDASETTI VEERAMANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M. Satyanarayana and Veeramam the two were married in 1965. Among the four children they had, three are daughters of the age group of 12, 10, and 5 years. Their one son died. They were living separately from 1974. The husband sought for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act XXV of 1955 (the Act) on 15/03/1975. Earlier he received notice Ex. A- 2/01/1975) and sent a reply Ex. A- 3/01/1975). Soon thereafter on 23/10/1975 the District Munsif of Sriharikota at the instance of the wife ordered the husband to pay maintenance per order Ex. B-1 in M. C. No. 8 of 1975. The wife stated the above facts and resisted the petition inter alia to contend the petition is not bona fide. She averred the petition was a counterblast to defeat the order of maintenance passed on 23/10/1975. That they were living separately and the husband had deserted her.

(2.) The spouses gave evidence. Two more persons, one each were examined as their respective witnesses. The First Additional Subordinate Judge at Visakha-patnam rejected the prayer of the husband for restitution. Hence the above appeal by the husband.

(3.) In recent past Section 9 of the Act was amended and now under the amend ed Section 9, it is made clear that a petition for "restitution" can be resisted on "legal grounds", if the Court further a satisfied that there existed no "reasonable" excuses for the opposing spouse to withdraw from his (or her) society. These are the two requirements now to be stated and proved in resisting an application for restitution of conjugal rights. Section 9 petition can also be opposed by seeking reliefs available under the Act in a "counter-claim" on the grounds of "adultery", "cruelty" and "desertion". Speaking of a wife what grounds are "legal grounds" within the meaning of the section? The grounds, if we may enumerate, must fall in the realm of personal law of Hindus and in the context the grounds include those that are set in the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act 78 of 1956. Under Section 18 of that Act, a wife can claim maintenance if she is abandoned, deserted, neglected or cruelly treated, or the husband suffered "Virulent leprosy", lived with another wife, resided with a concubine or converted to any other religion. These grounds which are available for a wife to claim maintenance. and the same grounds can be the "legal grounds" on which a wife can resist a husband's petition for restitution of conjugal rights. The above enumerated grounds stated in Section 18 of that Act may not be exhaustive. In the nature of things, it is better to hold those grounds are not exhaustive.