CHHOTA SINGH Vs. AMARJIT KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment will dispose of F. A. O. No. 93-M as well as F. A. O. No. 94-M, both of 1988. These appeals are directed against two separate judgments and decrees whereby petitioner's application under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, were dismissed. The. appellants in the two' appeals are real brothers and the respondents are two real sisters. It appears that both the sisters were married at the same time and various material incidents which have a bearing on the present controversy took place together. The parties have led identical evidence in both the cases. It will, be convenient to refer to the facts in F. A. O. No. 93 of 1988 (Chhota Singh v. Amarjit Kaur ).

(2.) THE petitioner was married with the respondent about 16 years before filing of the present petition, which works out to the year 1970. About six months prior to the filing of the petition, the respondent's father came to the petitioner's village and took her away on the pretext that she had to attend marriage of a close relation. The respondent took away her ornaments and valuable clothes while going. She failed to return thereafter. The petitioner later on came to know that there was no marriage amongst the relations of the respondent. He went to fetch the respondent, but the respondent declined to come with him, insisting that the petitioner must start living separately from his parents and only on that condition being fulfilled she would go and live with him in the matrimonial house. The petitioner went again to the respondent's parental village along with Ajmer Singh, Gujjan Singh, Ram Singh Mistri and Dr. Tara Singh etc. To persuade the respondent and her father, but to no purpose. In fact, the aforesaid panchayat was also told that the petitioner must arrange to reside separately from his parents and only then it would be considered whether the respondent would join him or not. It was, therefore, averred that the respondent had withdrawn from the petitioner's society without any reasonable cause and hence the petition for restitution of conjugal rights.

(3.) THE petition was contested. It was stated that the petitioner had been giving beating to the respondent and she along with her sister, who was married to the real brother of the petitioner, were turned out of the house after giving beating to them. The respondents were told not to come back except after arranging for sufficient dowry. Thereafter the petitioner filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights. In the course of efforts for compromise, Bhan Singh, father of the petitioner, Jagrup Singh Sarpanch of village Pharwahi and Dial Singh son of Modan Singh, of the same village, gave affidavits, undertaking to be sureties for the fact that the petitioner would not beat or maltreat the respondent. On that assurance, the respondent rejoined her husband and the petition for restitution of conjugal rights was got dismissed as compromised. However, there was no improvement in the attitude of the petitioner and the respondent continued to be given beating. Ultimately she was turned out of the house about 3-1/2 years prior to the institution of the petition. It was further stated that the respondent had filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for maintenance and the present petition had been instituted by the opposite party as a counter-blast to the said petition and it was, in fact, not bona fide.