DARSHAN SINGH Vs. MST DASO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the judgment dated 17-10-1978 passed by the District Judge, Sri Ganganagar, whereby the appellant's petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), was dismissed and the petitioner-appellant was ordered to pay maintenance to the non-petitioner-respondent for herself and her daughter to the tune of Rs. 300/ per month.

(2.) The appellant's case was that the parties were married about seven years ago according to Hindu rites. They lived as husband and wife at Chak 3 M.D., Tehsil Anupgarh, and a daughter was born out of the wedlock. About three years ago, the non-petitioner left the company of the petitioner without any reasonable excuse and went to her parents. Despite several efforts, she did not return to her matrimonial home. The non-petitioner admitted the other facts as averred by the petitioner. She, however, denied the allegations made against her with regard to leaving the company of the petitioner without any reasonable excuse. After traversing these allegations, it was averred by her that the petitioner in her absence married one Mst. Puni about 3-4 years ago without her consent and when her father came to leave her at the petitioner's house, the petitioner refused to accept her. The non-petitioner had no alternative, but under compulsion had to go back with her father. It was also averred that in the presence of the second wife, it will not be in her interest to live with the petitioner and she will have to suffer physical and mental torture and she will be deprived of her matrimonial rights. She also claimed maintenance @ Rs. 300/- per month from the petitioner for herself and her daughter.

(3.) The learned District Judge framed as many as four issues and recorded the evidence of the parties. After hearing arguments the learned District Judge dismissed the petition for restitution of conjugal rights and awarded maintenance @ Rs. 300/- per month. The learned District Judge found that the petitioner married the second wife and there was reasonable excuse for the non-petitioner for not living with the petitioner.