KISHAN LAL Vs. RUKMANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred by the appellant husband against the order of the learned Family Court, Dausa passed on 01.06.2019. By this order, the learned Family Court dismissed the Matrimonial Application No.42/2018 filed by the appellant against respondent wife u/s 9 of the of the Hindu Marriage Act (for short "the Act") for restitution of conjugal rights.

(2.) Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that the appellant filed an application u/s 9 of the Act against the respondent wife. In this application, the appellant stated that the respondent is his legally wedded wife. From their marriage wedlock, two daughter; namely, Vijaylaxmi and Kumari Manisha and a son; namely, Dharmraj were born. Their elder daughter Vijaylaxmi is married and younger daughter Manisha and son Dharmraj are still unmarried. The appellant stated in his application that his wife independently walked along with other persons - one male and other female. His wife threatened him to involve in any false case and used to abuse every time. The respondent wife deserted the appellant without any cogent reason. For last six years, she is residing at the house of the appellant which was constructed by him at Dausa. Respondent wife regularly used to commit the theft of electricity to involve him in any false case. In reply, the respondent wife admitted the fact of marriage with the appellant and also the fact of children born from wedlock of their marriage. She also admitted the fact of marriage of her elder daughter but rest of the facts are denied by her. She stated in her reply that the appellant wanted to marry her younger daughter in minor age. When she opposed the said marriage, then the appellant levelled false allegations against her. She also pleaded that the appellant is residing at Delhi for last 30 years along with his brother. She also denied the fact of misbehaviour by her. On the pleadings of the parties, learned Family Court framed two issues for adjudication :

(3.) In support of the pleadings, the appellant submitted affidavits of witnesses - Kishanlal (AW-1), Sunita (AW-2) and Madan Lal (AW-3) but during the course of trial, he examined himself as AW-1 and his witness Madan Lal as AW-3. Respondent examined herself as NAW 1. After hearing both the parties, the learned Family Court dismissed the application filed by the appellant.