JAI JAI DEVI Vs. OM PARKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal feild by Smt. Jai Jai Devi against the judgment and order passed by the Senior Sub-Judge, Patiala (exercising the powers of the District Judge, under the Hindu Marriage Act), whereby a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights has been granted against Smt. Jai Jai Devi.

(2.) The facts necessary to determine the controversy between the parties are that on 23rd of February, 1971, Smt. Jai Jai Devi, appellant, had been married to Om Parkash according to Hindu rites and a female child namely Guddi was born to Smt. Jai Jai Devi from the loins of Om Parkash on 3rd February, '1972, at village Sanghol. The appellant had come to her village on 19th November, 1971 in connection with a marriage and expected delivery of a child. Om Parkash went to village Sanghol on 20th December, 1971 and on 13th January, 1972, to bring back the appellant, but she refused to accompany him. The parents of Om Parkash along with Jaswant and Dharam Vir went twice to bring back Smt. Jai Jai Devi on 1st of August, 1972 and on 13th of Aug, 1972 but she refused. Left with no other alternative. Om Parkash file a petition for restitution of conjugal rights against his wife Smt Jai Jai Devi on the allegations that Smt.'Jai Jai Devi had withdrawn from his society without any reasonable excuse since 19th November, 1971. The appellant contested these assertions Smt. Jai Jai Devi denied that Om Parkash or any body, else came to her. Instead she stated that Om Parkash and his parents were greedy people and they were putting pressure on the appellant that she should bring Rs 5,000 from her parents for running a separate business, but she showed her inability to do so; that she was beaten frequently and was not permitted to write letters to her parents. She was treated with such cruelty as to give rise of an apprehension in the mind of the appellant that she would done away with by Om Parkash as he had finished his first wife was averred that on the birth of Guddi, neither the respondent nor any of his relations visited the appellant. The petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act had been filed only to forestall an application under Section 125 of the Criminal Prcoedure Code for the grant of maintenance by the appellant In the replication, the allegations made in the written statement were denied by Om Parkash.

(3.) On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :