Y VARALAKSHMI Vs. Y KANAKA DURGA PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two Civil Miscellaneous Appeals can be disposed of by a common order. CMA. No. 300 of 1987 arises from OP. No. 251 of 1984 which is a petition filed by the appellant wife for restitution, of Conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. CMA. No. 301 of 1987 arises from OP. No. 2 of 1985, which is a petition filed by the respondent husband for custody of the minor son of the parties, under Section 7 of the Guardian and Wards Act. For the sake of convenience, we shall refer to the wife as the 'petitioner' and the husband as ths 'respondent'.

(2.) The petitioner and the respondent were married on 9-12 1982. They belong to the same village. In fact, the house of the petitioner's parents is only at a distance of one furlong from the house of the respondent. They lived happily after the marriage in the house of the parents of the respondent. On 25-10-1985, a male child was born. The child had a cleft upper lip (hare-lip). The delivery took place in a private nursing home and, nine days there after the petitioner and the child were taken to the house of the petitioner's parents. After 21 days, it appears they were brought to the respondent's house. The boy was shown to a Doctor for rectifying the hare-lip. The Doctor advised four or five operations. The first operation took place on 12-3-84 at Guntur which is at a distance of about 15 to 20 miles from the village. By that date, the petitioner became pregnant again. On 17-3-1984, an abortion was effected. According to the petitioner, she was bleeding heavily on that account. Then we coms to 5-4-1984 which happens to be a crucial date in this case. On the morning of that date, the petitioner says, she was bleeding heavily and she wanted to go to her parents' house which, as stated herein before, is situated at a distance of about one furlong. She sent word to her parents. Her father came with another relative. When they asked the permission of the respondent to take her home, permission was not forthcoming either from the respondent or from his father. Be that as it may, she was taken to her parent's house. This was in the morning. In the afternoon, the petitioner received a talegraphic Lawyer's notice issued at the instance of the respondent It is Ex. A-1. The relevant portion of Ex. A-1 reads as follows :

(3.) The contents of the Original Petition arc to the following effect. After the marriage the parties were leading a happy marital life, that a child was born on 25-10-1983, that the petitioner become pregnant again within a few months, that her pregnancy was terminated by the respondent's parents without her knowledge and consent, and that on 5-4-1984, she was forced to leave the respondent's house. She underwent medical treatment in a private nursing home, though she wanted to join the respondent and tried to go to the respondent's house, she was not allowed to live there, and that the mediations also failed. Respondent had no justification for withdrawing from the society of the petitioner. Reference was also made to the exchange of notices.