CHAMAN LAL Vs. PINKE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur, dismissing appellant's petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") for restitution of conjugal rights.

(2.) THE petitioner as married with the respondent on July 3, 1983. According to the petitioner, the couple lived happily upto July 4, 1984 and the respondent was sent to her parents house in connection with the first delivery, which was expected a few months later. This was in accordance with the custom that the first delivery of the girl is arranged by her parents. A daughter named Sonia was born to the respondent on November 30, 1984. After two months of the birth of the daughter, the petitioner went to fetch his wife and child. The respondent as well as her mother insisted that the petitioner starts residing with them at village. Gazipur as their Ghar Jawai. This was not acceptable to the petitioner. With great persuasion and with the intervention of elders, the respondent and the child were brought back to the matrimonial house and there they again started living happily when the respondent conceived again. It is further averred that on May 17, 1986, the respondent went to her parent's house in routine to meet them. While going, she took away all her gold ornaments and other valuables. The petitioner went to fetch her in the beginning of July 1986 so that the respondent could be attended to during her confinement which was due. Again the respondent and her mother insisted that the petitioner resides with them as Ghar Jawai and in these circumstances the petitioner had to come back without bringing the respondent. A second child, a son, Devinder Pal, was born on July 8, 1986. Further case of the petitioner is that he took a Panchayat consisting of about 22 persons to persuade the respondent and her relations to join the matrimonial house. The Panchayat was, however, turned away on the ground that the petitioner being a person of limited means could not provide the comforts to which the respondent was used to and the only solution was that the petitioner stays with them as their Ghar Jawai. This being not acceptable to the petitioner, the Panchayat came away without achieving any result. The respondent finally declined to resume cohabitation on December 5, 1986 and accordingly the petitioner, the panchayat came away without achieving any result. The respondent finally declined to resume cohabitation on December 5, 1986 and accordingly the present petition was instituted on December 13, 1986.

(3.) IN the written statement, the plea of the respondent is that the relations between the parties were far from cordial from almost the beginning. Respondent's father is a non-resident India, living in Sharjah (Dubai ). He had spent Rs. 80,000/- on the marriage of the respondent with the petitioner. This, however, did not satisfy the petitioner and his other relations, who tamed out to be greedy persons and had been demanding money in order to start their business. It was denied that the respondent came to her parents' house in connection with her first delivery in accordance with the custom. It was pleaded that, in fact, she had been sent away by the petitioner to save expenses in connection with delivery. It was specifically denied that at any stage there was any suggestion by the respondent or any other relation of hers that the petitioner lives with them as Ghar Jawai. In fact, the respondent has five brothers, three of whom are adults, besides two sisters. In order to satisfy the demand of the petitioner, the respondent brought from her mother Rs. 900/- in October 1985 and Rs. 1200/- in March 1986 and gave those amounts to the petitioner. This, however, did not satisfy him. Further case of the respondent is that she was given a beating and turned out of the house in April 1986 for her failure to fulfil the petitioner's demands for more money in order to start his business. On May 15, 1986, about one month after she had been turned out, her mother took a panchayat consisting of Ram Lal RW-2, Mehnge Ram ex-panch and some others. The respondent was also taken by them along with the Panchayat. They tried to persuade the petitioner to rehabilitate the respondent, but they were given a point blank reply and they were further told that if they imposed the respondent on the petitioner, they would do so at their own peril. They came away without achieving any result. In July 1986 the respondent gave birth to her second child, Even though the petitioner was informed about the birth of the son, he did not come to see the child or his mother. The petitioner never made any provision for his wife or children. Left with no alternative, the respondent filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the grant of maintenance on August 2, 1986. The present petition under Section 9 of the Act, which was instituted on December 13, 1986, was not bona fide and was only a counter-blast to the aforesaid application for maintenance. The Trial Court framed the following issues :