LAXMI DEVI Vs. SITA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a wife's appeal against the judgment of the learned District Judge, Bhilwara, dated 30-4-82 by which her application under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as the to as the 'Act;) has been dismissed.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the parties were married according to the Hindu rites & customs at Bhilwara in May, 1974. Thereafter they lived together at Ajmer. The petitioner gave birth to a son, who was about 31/2 years old on the date to the petition i. e. 23-3-81. The case of the petitioner is that after the birth of that son, the non-petitioner Sitaram left the petitioner at her father's house at Bhilwara and thereafter never took her back or called her back and has thus withdrawn from her society without any reasonable excuse. Her case further was that she and her relations had requested the non-petitioner to take her back but he did not care. She, therefore, prayed for a decree for restitution of Conjugal rights. The application was contested by the non-petitioner Sita Ram on the ground that the son was conceived by the petitioner Laxmi Devi from a person other than the non-petitioner Sita Ram and that Smt. Laxmi Devi was guilty of adultery and, therefore, he had sent her away to her father's house and did not want to take her back. The non-petitioner had stated further in the additional pleas that it was on 6-1-76 that the non-petitioner had gone to Bhilwara with her brother and thereafter she returned to Ajmer on 15-8-76, and during all this time, the non-petitioner did not have any sexual-intercourse with the petitioner. However, within six months of her coming back to Ajmer on 15-8-76. She delivered a son. After framing the necessary issues and taking the evidence of the parties, the learned District Judge was of the view that the non-petitioner had been able to establish that the petitioner was guilty of adultery and that she had conceived from a person other than the non-petitioner and, therefore, there was reason- able cause for the non-petitioner to withdraw from the society of the petitioner. He, therefore dismissed the petitioner's application under section 9 of the Act. The petitioner has, therefore, come up in appeal.

(3.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant. The respondent has not cared to appear despite service of notice.