ANUDEEP SINGH Vs. GEETANJALI SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant-husband having remained unsuccessful in getting a decree for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short "the Act") from the Family Court, Gurgaon has filed the present appeal assailing the judgment and decree dated 29.3.2012. Put shortly, the facts of the instant case are that the appellant was married to the respondent on 30.11.1997. This was the second marriage of the parties. From the said wedlock, a son, namely, Samandeep Singh was born on 9.11.1998 at New Delhi at respondent's parental house. After the delivery, the respondent did not return to the matrimonial home and remained at the house of her parents. When the child was about six months old, the appellant and his parents insisted the respondent to return back to her matrimonial home. The respondent came with her son in her matrimonial home on Saturday and returned back to her parental house on the very next day, i.e. on Sunday. The first three birthdays of the child were celebrated at Gurgaon and thereafter all the birthdays were celebrated at Delhi only at the parental house of the respondent. Even the respondent did not allow the appellant to take their son with him. After 2005, the respondent came to her matrimonial home only once or twice and that too without the minor son. The appellant and his parents had never maltreated the respondent but they gave their love and affection to her since the day of the marriage. The appellant wanted the second child which the respondent flatly refused on 10.4.2011 and 17.4.2011. On 26.4.2011, the appellant asked the respondent to return to her matrimonial home but she refused. The appellant had been earning ' 60,000/-per month whereas the respondent had been earning ' 80,000/-per month. Thereafter, the appellant filed the petition under Section 9 of the Act for a decree of Restitution of Conjugal Rights. Notice of the said petition was issued to the respondent who filed reply controverting the averments made in the petition. The appellant filed rejoinder to the reply pleading that he is ready and willing to save their marriage and to keep the respondent and the minor son. All other averments made in the reply were denied and that of the petition were reiterated. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the Family Court:-

(2.) After analyzing the material led by the parties and hearing both the parties, the Family Court decided issue No. 1 in favour of the respondent and against the appellant. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 29.3.2012. Hence, the present appeal.

(3.) We have heard learned counsel for the appellant.