MOHINDER SINGH Vs. PRITAM KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A petition for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 filed by Mohinder Singh appellant against his wife Smt. Pritam Kaur respondent has been dismissed by the learned trial Judge on the finding that the petitioner was treating the respondent with cruelty. Feeling aggrieved, the husband has come up in appeal.

(2.) The parties have been married according to Hindu rites 10-12 years before the filing of this petition on 20th December, 1966. They had lived together happily as husband and wife for about two years after the marriage and then off and on, for certain shorter intervals of time. Two children had been born from this wedlock but the elder child is dead and the second child, a female, aged about five years at the time of the filing of petition is living with her mother.

(3.) The respondent seeks to justify her having withdrawn from the appellant's society after having lived with him for a few years and after having borne his two children on the ground that after about two years of the marriage, the appellant had started illtreating and beating her. The respondent used to be turned out or had to leave the husband's house because of beatings and tortures but on the intervention of a few respectables, the appellant had been prevailed upon to take back the respondent under his roof. In 1964, she had filed an application for maintenance under Section 488, Criminal Procedure Code, against the appellant. The case had been compromised and the respondent had agreed to come back to the appellant's house on that occasion also. She had therefore withdrawn the maintenance application in October, 1966. Exhibit R. 1 is a copy of final order passed by the Magistrate in that case. Within a couple of months of the withdrawal of that maintenance application, the respondent's brother had got search warrants issued under Section 100, Criminal Procedure Code, against the appellant. When the respondent was recovered from the appellant's house in execution of those search warrants and was produced before the Magistrate, she had complained of illtreatment and cruelty at the hands of the appellant. She had, therefore, been allowed to go with her brother. The Magistrate has mentioned in his order dated 5th December, 1966 (copy Exhibit R. 2) that the respondent's face was swollen at the time. One day after her recovery from her husband's house, the respondent had filed a complaint for criminal intimidation, wrongful confinement and hurt against the appellant under Sections 323, 344 and 506, Indian Penal Code. The present petition is a counter-blast filed by the husband about a fortnight after criminal complaint. The allegations of beatings and cruelty made against the appellant by the respondent were borne out by a medico legal certificate issued by the qualified doctor. It is, therefore, obvious that the appellant has been guilty of physical and mental cruelty towards the respondent and that her life is not safe in the appellant's house. The petition for restitution of conjugal rights file by the husband had, therefore, been rightly dismissed by the learned trial Judge.