SURYAKANTI PATEL Vs. GUNANIDHI PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEFENDANT No. 1 is the appellant in a suit for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act against the judgment and decree passed by the Learned 1st Addl. District Judge, Bolangir in Title Appeal No. 18/8 of 1982 -85 confirming the judgment and decree of the Learned Sub -ordinate Judge, Sonpur in Title Suit No. 4 of 1980 decreeing the plaintiff's suit for restitution of conjugal rights.

(2.) THE facts of the case briefly stated are that the Respondent No. 1 filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Learned Sub -ordinate Judge, Sonpur for restitution of conjugal rights stating inter alia that the Defendant No. 1 the present appellant is the legally married wife of Respondent No. 1, the marriage having been solemnized in the month of Chaitra, 1977 in the house of Respondent No. 1 at village Sukha. Both of them led a happy conjugal life till the month of Aswina, 1978 when Respondent No. 2 took her to his house to observe 'Bhaijuintia' ceremony. Respondent No. 1 went to the house of Respondent No. 2 to bring back the appellant but the Respondent No. 1 deferred the matter and lastly did not allow her to go with him. The plaintiff -respondent thereafter approached the Defendant No. 1 wife to return to her matrimonial home and that having failed, approached twice the Village Caste Panchayat, in vain, he filed the application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights and for restraining Respondents No. 2 and 3 from putting any obstruction in the matter. Respondents No. 2 and 3 remained ex parte and the Defendant No. 1 the present appellant contested the suit. It was the defendant -appellant's case that she is not the legally married wife of the Respondent No. 1. One of her relatives namely Kalakrushna took her to village Sukha with the proposal of seeing a house of bridegroom for her and he (Kalakrushna) left her in the house of Respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1 was found to have kept a concubine in his house and in spite of the attempts made by her, the plaintiff -Respondent No. 1 used to enjoy the matrimonial life with the appellant in drunkenness. He also brutally assaulted her and lastly left her at the house of her parents and thereafter did not provide anything for her maintenance.

(3.) ON consideration of the evidence of the plaintiff, who examined himself as P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 a caste man of the plaintiff's village, the Trial Court recorded the finding that there was valid marriage between the plaintiff and Defendant No. 1 and the cruelty as alleged by the defendant -wife has not been established and the Respondent No. 1 is entitled to the relief of restitution of conjugal rights.