URMAL KANTA Vs. KISHAN CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree passed by the Senior Subordinate Judge, Gurdaspur, allowing the petition of the husband for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act ).

(2.) THE petition under Section 9 of the Act was filed by the husband with the averments that the marriage between the parties was solemnised on 2. 4. 1983 at Amritsar according to Hindu rites and that the wife stayed along with the petitioner-husband at Dhariwal for about one week after the marriage. The respondent was employed as a teacher at Amritsar and she left for Amritsar to join her service. It is further averred that the petitioner-husband used to bring the wife to the matrimonial home on Saturday and that the wife used to leave for Amritsar on Monday. The aforesaid arrangement continued for about one month during which period they cohabited with each other. After one month, the respondent-wife began to quarrel with the husband and his parents. She refused to accompany the husband to the matrimonial home. The husband has further averred that he went to take her but instead of accompanying him, he was told that he should dislodge his relation with his parents and live at Amritsar but the later refused to agree with the suggestions. The husband has averred that he asked his wife that he has applied for his transfer near Dhariwal and she should also move for transfer near Dhariwal so that they could live happily. The respondent-wife rafused to apply for the transfer near Dhariwal. It is further the case of the husband that the parents of the wife and one Hira Lal Sharma, Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police pressurised to him to settle at Amritsar. The aforesaid Hira Lal Sharma is alleged to have threatened the husband that in case he docs not start living at Amritsar after bringing all the dowry articles, he would be killed, it has further been averred in the petition that Hira Lal Sharma had beaten him once and even his mother was thrown away when she tried to intervene. The matter was reported to the Police Station Dhariwal. Upon this some respectable persons were called and a compromise was effected according to which the wife was to come and live with the husband at Dhariwal in some other house other than the parents house. It has further been averred that according to the compromise, he went to take the wife but the respondent flatly refused to live together. It is further the allegation of the husband that the wife has taken away all the gold ornaments given by his parents weighing about eight tolas and other valuable clothes. The dowry articles were also alleged to have been removed from the house of the husband by the brothers of the wife and Hira Lal Sharma, A. S. I. By making the afore-mentioned averments it was submitted in the petition that the respondent has withdrawn from the society of the applicant-husband without reasonable excuse and therefore, he was entitled to a decree for restitution of conjugal rights. The averments made in the petition were denied giving rise to the following issues :

(3.) IN the light of this background, her refusal now in Court to live with the husband at Dhariwal clearly shows that she is not at all inclined to live with the husband. The withdrawal in my considered opinion is without sufficient reason. The case was put up at one stage before another Bench and the order passed on 6. 11. 1992 shows that parties were unable to reconcile the matter. It appears to me that both the parties being in service, they could not pull on well and it is for this reason that the respondent has adopted strict attitude, by saying that she was not prepared to live with the husband at Dhariwal.