LALIT GURUBAXANI Vs. USHA GURUBAXANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Wife filed petition for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. IVth Additional District Judge, Jabalpur by judgment and decree dated 25-10-1996 passed in Civil Suit No. 93-A of 1993 passed decree for restitution of conjugal rights. Husband aggrieved by the same, has preferred this appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

(2.) According to the wife, marriage took place on 25-5-1990 according to the Hindu rites and she stayed at her matrimonial home at Satna for about three months where the behaviour of the husband as also his family members was not good. Wife's further case is that she was neglected by the members of the husband's family and was not allowed to sit along with other family members of the husband. Wife has further stated in her application that her husband has stated to her that he intended to marry one Kumari Hemlata and she is not of his choice and his family members without obtaining his consent performed the marriage, only to obtain dowry and other valuable gifts from the family of the wife. Wife's case further is that her husband avoided her by not giving her company and treated her in an indecent manner. According to the wife he demanded a huge amount for purchase of a car, but the same was refused on the ground that her brother and other family members have already given adequate gifts at the time of performance of the marriage. It is the allegation of the wife that on 15-10-1991, she was driven out from the matrimonial home and asked to bring money for purchase of the car. It is the allegation of the wife that she came to Jabalpur empty handed and although she had written letters to her husband requesting him to come to Jabalpur and take her to the matrimonial home, he has not come. It is further stated that she has been thrown out of the matrimonial home as her husband wants to marry another lady. In the aforesaid premises, the wife prayed for decree for restitution of conjugal rights.

(3.) According to the husband, the petition filed by the wife for restitution of conjugal rights is fit to be dismissed because several other cases are pending in other Courts between the parties. Details of the cases have been given in paragraph 1 of the written statement and the same pertain to application filed by the wife for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, criminal case under Section 494, I.P.C., petition under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, criminal case under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and the petition filed for recovery of the amount given at the time of marriage. It is the stand of the husband that his behaviour and that of his family members was very affectionate towards the wife. According to the husband, his wife belonged to a rich family, she was in the habit of going out and spent levishly and because of (her) arrogant nature, she could not adopt the culture of his family. According to the husband the wife's assertion that she will stay at Satna or Jabalpur according to her wishes, was the main bone of contention. The allegation made by the wife of demand of dowry and money for purchase of car have been denied by the husband. His stand is that sufficient dowry was given to him. Husband has further stated in the written statement that the wife was asked to adopt cultures and conventions of his family, but the same was not acceded to. According to the husband, she was very proud of being financially sound and her needs were not possible to be fulfilled by him from the salary which he gets as an employee of the Bank as he is to support his mother and brother also. It is the allegation of the husband that the wife is staying at her mother's place out of his own volition and he as also his other family members made attempts to bring her to the matrimonial home, but she always refused. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned Judge framed various issues including the issue as to whether the wife was sent to her parents place by the husband on 15-10-1991 in order to perform second marriage and the learned Judge after recording the finding in favour of the wife passed decree for restitution of conjugal rights. It is relevant here to state that the petition for restitution of conjugal rights was filed on 28-4-1993 and although the husband appeared before the trial Court, but later on absented and by judgment and decree dated 30-9-1994 the petition filed by the wife for restitution of conjugal rights was decreed ex parte. Thereafter, husband filed application for setting aside the ex parte decree which was allowed and ex parte decree was set aside. Thereafter wife in support of her case examined altogether five witnesses. P.W. 1 is the wife herself whereas P.W. 2 Prakash Keshawani is her brother. No witness has been examined on behalf of the husband nor the witnesses examined by the wife have been cross-examined by him.