RUCHI RANI (SMT.) Vs. AASHU KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant misc. appeal has been preferred by the appellant Smt. Ruchi Rani against the judgment and decree dated 22.11.2011 passed by the learned District Judge, Hanumangarh in Civil Misc. Case No. 302/2006 whereby, the application filed by the respondent husband under Section of the Hindu Marriage Act was accepted and a decree for restitution of conjugal rights was passed against the appellant wife and she was directed to live together with the respondent husband and perform her matrimonial obligations.

(2.) Facts in brief are that the appellant was married to the respondent on 22.4.2004 at Goluwala, District Hanumangarh. A female child was born from the wedlock on 4.3.2005. The appellant wife was employed as a teacher from before the marriage. It is alleged that she left the respondent husband's Village Tibbi and went to her father's Village Goluwala after six months of the marriage. As per the Respondent husband's case, he made numerous efforts of appeasement and conciliation so that the appellant wife may come back and live with him and perform her matrimonial obligations but she refused. A Pnnchayat was also convened in the month of October 2005 wherein, relatives of both the sides were called but the proceedings proved inconclusive. In January 2006, another Panchayat was held at the house of one Chananmal Garg but the same also proved inconclusive because the wife refused to go and live with the husband. Repeated efforts were attempted for resolving the dispute between the parties but without any success.

(3.) Having failed in all efforts of social reconciliation to bring back his wife, the respondent husband filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act in the learned Court below seeking a decree of restitution of conjugal rights. It was pleaded in the application that 15 days prior to the filing of the application, the respondent husband went to Goluwala for fetching the appellant wife with him and requested that she should come back and perform her matrimonial obligations but she refused pointblank. It was also pleaded that just 10 days after the marriage, the respondent husband had to separate from his parents because of the pressure of the appellant wife.