MOHAN LAL Vs. SANTOSH KUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mohan Lal has filed this appeal against the judgment dated December 3, 1974, passed by the Sub-Judge First Class, Zira, whereby his petition against his wife Santosh Kumari for the restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act was dismissed. The parties got married in the month of September, 1966, at Zira and the respondent went away from the house of the petitioner in the month of October, 1972. The petition was filed on September 12, 1973. It was mentioned therein that there was a marriage of the brother of the respondent which was to be celebrated after about a month of the separation and the petitioner having not been invited to that marriage it became known to him that the respondent had completely withdrawn from his society. It was further contended by the petitioner that he went to her in the month of January, 1973 but she refused to come back to his house.

(2.) The respondent alleged some grounds of cruelty for showing that it was not possible for her to go back to the petitioner's house. She had at first said that there were abortions on four occasions. They were said to be due to mal-nutrition. She also pleaded that the petitioner had been careless about her health. This particular complaint was made against the petitioner's mother that she was a woman of hot temper and that she used to join with the petitioner in giving beating to her occasionally. Further, according to the respondent, the petitioner had made a demand of Rs. 10,000/- which she had been unable to bring from her parents. It is also mentioned in the written statement that the petitioner wanted that the respondent's father should execute a gift in respect of five acres of land.

(3.) There were two issues framed by the trial Sub-Judge. One of them required the petitioner to prove that the respondent had withdrawn from his society without a reasonable excuse. The second issue required the respondent to prove that the petitioner had been guilty of cruelty. The trial Court believed the respondent in relation to all the allegations made by her and for that reason decided both the issues in her favour. The most material evidence against the petitioner is the statement given by Santosh Kumari as respondent as R.W. 5. She said that the petitioner and his mother used to give a beating to her with dandas. She never got herself medically examined as she stated that the hurts which were caused did not leave behind any marks. She further said of any marks being left behind. Furthermore, she said that blows with dandas used to be given on her back and that this was the reason why injuries were such which could not be found through medical examination. For obtaining the sympathy of the Court the respondent added in her examination-in-chief that her hands used to be placed under the charpoy and the petitioner used to sit on that charpoy. There is no corroboration of this kind of statement from any other evidence. The trial Court was much influenced by this allegation made by the respondent that the petitioner had been making a demand of Rs. 10,000/-. The respondent's father is Bakshi Ram and he gave evidence as R.W. 4. He is a petty cloth merchant at Zira. According to him, a sum of Rs. 10,000/- was all that he could spend on the marriage of his daughter. There is no evidence to show that any higher amount was spent. It would be unreasonable to think that a man who could only spend a sum of Rs. 10,000/- at the time of the marriage inclusive of all expenses could have been able to further pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- even if he so willed. It was stated by Bakshi Ram that at the time of the marriage the petitioner had not put any condition in relation to the dowry. It was not, therefore, expected of the petitioner that soon after the marriage he would put forward a demand in relation to which there was no talk before the marriage. It was stated by the respondent and was repeated by some other witnesses as well that the petitioner wanted a gift of five acres of land. It has not at all been shown as to how much land the respondent's father owned, and thus there is no reason to believe that the demand was such which could in fact be satisfied. Bakshi Ram admitted that after about one year of the marriage there was some contest over a municipal election and that the petitioner suspected that he had not canvassed for votes in relation to a candidate which was being supported by the petitioner. This was said to be the cause for trouble between the parties and in consequence thereof the respondent was said to have been turned out of the house. If this was in fact the starting point of the trouble it would not be reasonable to believe that the respondent was turned out of the house because some demand with regard to money and land had not been met by the respondent's father.