KRISHNA Vs. DILBAGH SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant-wife has challenged decree passed against her in Hindu Marriage Case No. 32 of 1986 filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act ).

(2.) THE respondent-petitioner filed a petition under Section 9 of the Act alleging that he was married to the appellant on 18. 2. 1980. After marriage they lived together for about five years peacefully. She gave birth to a son on 8. 2. 1984. Respondent's father advanced Rs. 10,000/- to the appellant's father as a loan in the month of July, 1982. When respondent's father demanded this amount in January, 1985, appellant's father became annoyed. In February, 1985 appellant was called back from the matrimonial home to the appellant home, she was not sent back. The respondent's brother went to her parental home to bring her back but she declined on the excuse that the child is ill. In July, 1985 again, the respondent's father went to bring her back but the appellant's father refused to send her and refused to repay the loan also. The respondent convened panchayat to bring her back but all proved futile. On 24. 11. 1985, appellant's father filed a false complaint against the respondent, his father and his uncle under Section 107/ 151 Cr. P. C. They were discharged on 16. 4. 1986 as the appellant gave a statement that the complaint was filed on the basis of some misunderstanding. The respondent filed a petition under Section 9 of the Act, which was compromised and the appellant went to reside in the matrimonial home. But again in May, 1986, appellant's father came to her matrimonial home, demanded some amount from the respondent and on his refusal he threatened him to involve in some false case. Thereafter, he obtained warrant under Section 97 Cr. P. C. from the Court of Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Siwani. In compliance thereof the appellant was produced before the Magistrate. She gave a false statement at the instance of her father and went to her parental home. Thus, she has withdrawn from his society without any reasonable cause or excuse.

(3.) ISSUES were framed. Respondent examined himself and his witnesses who were cross-examined by the appellant's Counsel. But in rebuttal the appellant failed to adduce any evidence. On a minute scanning of the evidence on record, the Trial Court came to the conclusion that the respondent is willing to keep his wife but the appellant is not joining him. She has withdrawn from his society without any sufficient cause. On the basis of this finding decree for restitution of conjugal rights was passed.