(1.) This appeal arises out of the judgment of the Subordinate Judge First Class, Nabha, as per which he granted a decree for restitution of conjugal rights in favour of Harbans Singh respondent against his wife Gurmeet Kaur appellant in petition filed under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act !hereinafter referred to as the Act).
(2.) There is hardly any dispute in regard to the facts. The parties were married in the year 1970 and two children were born out of their wed-lock, but both of them are said to have died. According to the allegation made by the respondent in the petition under section 9 of the Act, the appellant was in the habit of leaving his company without any reasonable cause and on the last occasion, i:e., about It 1-1/4 years before the filing of the petition, she went away from the house carrying some jewellery, cash and clothes etc. The respondent made attempts to bring her hack but they proved abortive. The case of the appellant, on the other hand, is that she was not beautiful. She also asserted that she had been turned out of the house of the respondent who gave her beating on four or five occasions. A material allegation which has been made in paragraph 4 of her written statement is that her father had gone to the house of the respondent about twenty days before she had been turned out of the house and had asked the respondent not to misbehave with her or to beat her and at that time the matter was got compromised.
(3.) The trial Court framed the necessary issues in this case. The only issue which is relevant for the purpose of the present appeal and which has been mooted is issue No. 1, i. e. whether the appellant had withdrawn from the society of the respondent without any reasonable excuse. Both the parties led evidence in support of !heir respective contentions. So far as the respondent is concerned, he examined Bachan Singh (P.W. 1) Bakhtawar Singh (P.W.2), Hazura Singh (P.W.3) and appeared himself as P. W. 4. The appellant also examined Chattar Singh (R.W.1). Gurcharan Singh (R.W.2), Sadhu Singh son of Inder Singh (R.W.3), Sadhu Singh son of Baru Singh (R.W.4). Bhag Singh (R. W.5) (father of the appellant) and herself as R.W.6. The trial Court considered the respective merits of the evidence produced by the parties and found that the material produced by the respondent was more reliable than the testimony of the witnesses who were put in the witness-box by the appellant, one of whom was found to be an interested witness. A decree for restitution of conjugal rights was, therefore, granted in favour of the respondent.