GINDAN Vs. BARELAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by appellant Mst. Gindan and four others against the judgment and decree dated 1st August, 1974 passed by the Additional District Judge, Parma, in Civil Suit No 3-A of 1973 by which the petition of the respondent, Barelal, under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights has been allowed.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that Mst. Gindan (appellant No. 1) was married about fifteen years back to the respondent. From the wedlock three children were born out of whom two are dead and the third male child aged about 9 months is with appellant No. 1. Appellants Nos. 3 to 5 are brothers of appellant No. 1 and appellant No. 2 is her father. According to the respondent, his wife Mst. Gindan had no reasonable excuse to withdraw herself from his society along with all the ornaments given to her by him and as such he was entitled for a decree for restitution of conjugal rights against her and a direction to other appellants to refrain from stopping her from going with him as she is living with them.

(3.) IN defence, appellant No. 1 Mst. Gindan denied the allegations made by the respondent and pleaded that she was ill treated by her husband to the extent of cruelty and was ousted from the house. She further denied to have taken away any ornaments. On the other hand, her allegation is that her ornaments are in possession of the respondent. She further stated that about two years back she was beaten by her husband (respondent) resulting in a fracture of her right wrist. The death of the two children has been alleged on account of poor feeding at the instance of the father who not only prevented her to give them proper food but she was also not properly fed with the result that her health had shaken considerably. On the persuasion of the respondent, her parents persuaded her to go with her husband, but on the way she was again beaten and she had to return back. According to her, in these circumstances she has ultimately decided to reside with her parents. She completely denied that the appellants 2 to 5 ever stopped her from going to her husband's place and they have been unnecessarily impleaded as parties in the case.