KAILASH DEVI Vs. RAJINDER PRASHAD SACHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A petition for restitution of conjugal rights filed by the husband against his wife. Smt. Kailash Devi Appellant, under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, ended in a compromise or reconciliation on 27th July, 1988. On the said date the Appellant was in Canada but she was represented at the hearing of the case by her counsel who had instructions from her father. On the basis of statements made by the Appellant's husband, Shri Rajinder Parshad Respondent and the appellants counsel, duly instructed by her father, a decree for restitution of conjugal rights was granted in favour of the husband and it was agreed that it shall not be executed for a period of six months. In the mean time, the Appellant or her relatives were supposed to arrange a visa enabling Shri Rajinder Parshad to join his wife in Canada. In the event of the visa being arranged as stipulated, the application for restitution of conjugal rights was to stand dismissed. Parties were left to bear their own costs.

(2.) THE wife has filed an appeal against this consent decree. According to her, certain material circumstances have been ignored and the decree was against the provisions of the statute. It is urged that there was no material on the file from which the Court could be satisfied that the grounds for granting the relief existed or that the Appellant had withdrawn from the society of her husband without any reasonable cause. Moreover, the Appellant denied her father's authority to make a statement on her behalf in Court. The compromise decree was further said to be the result of collusion and as such against the intentions of the legislature, or the object for which the Hindu Marriage Act was passed.

(3.) IN the present case, a marriage between the parties had been solemnized in April, 1967 The wife went over to live at the house of her husband's parents immediately after the marriage and they lived together for about three months. In the written statement filed by the Appellant wife to her husband's petition for restitution of conjugal rights, there are no allegations of neglect desertion or cruelty against the husband and his averment that no child has been bom from the wedlock has provoked the rejoinder that in her -in -laws house no opportunity was afforded to the couple to have the freedom of sexual intercourse. It may appear that the Appellant has a brother or brothers settled in Canada. According to her, she had been induced to enter into matrimony on the assurance that the couple would be allowed to go to Canada. One of the reasons given for the differences or misunderstandings between the couple is that the Respondent and his parents were trying to back out of that undertaking.