RAJENDRA KUMAR Vs. LEELADEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has challenged the judgment dated 20.9.2007 passed by the Additional District Judge, Sojat, whereby the the learned Judge had dismissed the application filed by the appellant under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, ('the Act', for short).

(2.) Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant- Rajendra Kumar, and respondent- Smt. Leeladevi were married in 1995 according to Hindu rites and customs. After the marriage, both the appellant and respondent resided as husband and wife at Jaitaran. However, after some time, the respondent left her matrimonial home and went to her parental home without any reasonable cause. The appellant's father and other relatives went and asked the respondent about her leaving the matrimonial home. Then respondent's father assured that the mistake would not be perpetuated. After four months, respondent expressed her willingness to come back to Jaitaran if the appellant would come to take her. The appellant went to pick her up. But her father and brother assaulted him. Subsequently, the respondent lodged a criminal case under Section 498-A IPC against the appellant. The appellant filed an application for restitution of conjugal rights. In order to buttress his case, the appellant-husband examined four witnesses. In turn, the respondent -wife examined three witnesses. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, vide judgment dated 20.9.2007, the learned Judge dismissed the application. Hence, this appeal before this Court.

(3.) Mr. C.P. Soni, the learned counsel for the appellant, has vehemently contended that according to the appellant, the respondent-wife had left the matrimonial home for a period of 15 to 20 days. However, despite the lapse of the said period, she never came back to the matrimonial home. Moreover, in spite of his best efforts, the wife never came back to resume the matrimonial relationship. Therefore, he was entitled to a decree for restitution of conjugal rights. According to the learned counsel, the learned Judge has erred in dismissing his application under Section 9 of the Act.