ABHISHEK RAI Vs. PAYAL KHAROLIWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 23.09.2011, the appellant filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking restitution of conjugal rights in which he pleaded that his wife i.e. the respondent has left the matrimonial house without any justified cause. The respondent was served with a notice in said petition and settlement took place between the parties evident from the fact that on 15/09/2012 the appellant withdrew the petition filed by him. Unfortunately, the order dated 15/09/2012 simply records that in the spirit of a settlement the appellant was withdrawing the petition filed by him seeking restitution of conjugal rights.

(2.) Case of the appellant was that marriage was solemnised between the couple on 09/10/2010. After marriage, she lived with the appellant as his wife for 3 or 4 days and went to her parents house with consent of the appellant. She stayed there for five months. She returned with him to the matrimonial house. She told the appellant that she cannot stay in the matrimonial house for long and had to go back to her parental house because she was preparing to sit for the ensuing Rajasthan Administrative Services examination. That the respondent would prefer stay at her parental house and would try to show appellant in small light by emphasizing that she was in government service. She insisted that the appellant should live separate from his father. He told the respondent that being the only son he could not do so and especially for the reason his mother had died and there was nobody to lookafter his aging father and his sisters were married. That on the pretext of taking the Rajasthan Administrative Services examination she would delay returning to her matrimonial house. Since 2011, she did not return to the matrimonial house. That at the time of the marriage the respondent's age was wrongly informed to him, whereas she was aged 35 years. It was informed that her age was 28 years. That when he sought confirmation of said fact from the respondent she became abusive.

(3.) In the reply filed the respondent denied the assertions made that she would prefer to stay with her parents. As per her the appellant had abandoned her. She affirmed that she was born in the year 1981 and denied that her parents or she disclosed a much lesser age to the appellant when the marriage was solemnised.