JUDGMENT
V.K. Jhanji, J.
1. This is husband’s appeal directed against the judgment dated August 1, 1988 of the learned Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur whereby petition for restitution of conjugal rights Under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act (for short the Act) has been dismissed.
2. Marriage between the parties was solemnised according to Hindu rites on 7.2.1984 at Mukerian and subsequent thereto they lived together resulting in the birth of a son on 12.1.1985. The husband Anil Kumar (appellant herein) brought a petition against his wife Kiran Bala (respondent herein) for restitution of conjugal rights Under Section 9 of the Act alleging therein that after the marriage, the respondent stayed with him for week or so and then went away to her parents. His case has been that from the very beginning, the respondent insisted for separate mess, residence and business without any reason whatsoever. He averred in his petition that he has been living with his mother and two married elder brothers jointly and had been doing business with his brothers; that there was a joint mess and residence and it was not possible for him to take such a drastic step for separation immediately after the marriage. But the respondent was adamant for separation of the appellant from his brothers and family. He further averred that she provoked her parents and levelled false allegations against him and his family members. He averred that on 6.5.1984, her father, brother and one Hem Raj Aggarwal visited his house and enquired about the allegations which the respondent has levelled against him and other family members. He further alleged that they took the respondent to Mukerian so as to persuade her to live with her husband and while going, the respondent took all the ornaments and valuables with ulterior motive as she had decided not to come back to the house of the appellant. He has stated that in the month of July 1984, the appellant and his brother narrated the whole story to Shri Muni Lal Aggarwal who is President of Agarwal Sabha of Hoshiarpur. Shri Muni Lal Aggarwal along with Sat Pal Aggarwal, Joginder Partap (maternal uncle of the appellant) and Vinod Kumar (brother of the respondent) approached the respondent and it was settled that the parents of the respondent will drop her at Hoshiarpur within a week but they did not stick to the settlement and never sent the respondent till the filing of the petition. He stated that on 20.10.1984, the respondent along with her father, brother and Shri Prem Chand and Shri Ajudhia Parshad gathered at the house of Shri Muni Lal Aggarwal and in the presence of the appellant, his other family members, Shri Hem Raj Aggarwal, Sat Pal, Inder Sen, it was settled that the respondent who was in family way, will join the appellant after the birth of the child. His case has been that the respondent has not returned to her matrimonial home despite many efforts made by him to rehabilitate her.
3. Respondent, in her written statement, denied all the allegations made by the appellant and averred that the appellant and his family members are dowry-seekers. She averred that she was kept for about a month with all the comforts but after one month, the appellant and his other family members started sounding her that they have spent a lot on marriage and have constructed a new house on which they have also spent a lot of money and they intended to enlarge the business and for that purpose they require a lot of money. She averred that she kept silent and went on hearing their indirect remarks but ultimately she was asked by the appellant and his brothers and mother to get them compensated and disclosed their intention to bring Rs. 30,000/- from her parents. She requested the appellant, his brothers and mother with folded hands that her father had already spent about Rs. One Lac on her marriage and had given sufficient dowry and it was beyond his means and therefore he cannot pay any thing more. She refused to comply with their wishes to bring more money from her parents to satisfy their greed for money. Thereafter the appellant and his family members started taunting, insulting and ultimately torturing her. She averred that the appellant and his family members started saying that dozens of ladies die daily and the respondent may also meet the same fate. She stated that she was not even provided two times meals and was given beating. Ultimately, she was turned out of the house in wearing apparels in October, 1984 when she was in advanced stage of pregnancy after she was given severe beatings. She gave birth to a male child in January, 1985 and the appellant and his family members were duly informed but no body came to see the child. She denied that any Panchayat or respectables as alleged in the petition, came to her or to her parents. She has rather stated that she and her parents visited the appellant along with Sarvshri Ajudhya Parshad of Jagraon, Hari Mitter of Garhdiwala, Narinder Sharma of Hajipur, Prem Nath, Satish Kumar and others. Appellant and his parents refused to rehabilitate her as they intended to re-marry the appellant somewhere else. She has averred that the appellant cannot take advantage of his own wrongs.
4. Appellant filed replication denying the averments made in the written statement by the respondent.
On the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues :-
1. Whether there are sufficient grounds for withdrawal of the wife-respondent from the society of the husband-petitioner ? OPR.
2. Relief
Trial Court, on appreciation of the evidence brought on the record, dismissed the petition as the trial Court was of the view that it was the husband who made the respondent leave his house and thereby drove her to withdraw from his society. This is husband’s appeal directed against the order of learned Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur.
5. On hearing the learned counsel and after going through the record, I find that no case is made out for interference. In his petition Under Section 9 of the Act, the appellant has averred that the respondent left him on 6.5.1984 along with her father and one Hem Raj Aggarwal who visited his house to enquire about the allegations levelled by the respondent against the appellant and his family members. Anil Kumar, while appearing as PW-1, stated that the respondent pressed him to live separately from his brothers and their wives and she also wanted him to start separate business. He also stated that on 6.5.1984, her father and one Hem Raj Aggarwal came to his house and took the respondent after assuring him that they would make her understand and send her back after a week. However, his brother Gulshan Rai while appearing as PW-5, stated in his cross-examination that the respondent went happily to her parents’ house in May, 1984. He further stated that there was no quarrel between the parties at that lime. This statement is totally contrary to what appellant had stated in his statement. Kiran Bala, in her statement as RW-1, has not only stated that the appellant and his parents ill-treated her on account of insufficiency of dowry but the appellant also threatened that he would not keep her and contract second marriage. She also stated that in July, 1986, the appellant brought a divorce case against her in Court. When she appeared in Court, a settlement was arrived at and accordingly she went to the appellant’s house on 3.8.1986 as per settlement. On 28.8.1986, the appellant withdrew the divorce petition and started ill-treating her. She lived with him till October, 1986 when he gave her beatings and turned her out of the house on 13.10.1986. She was cross-examined at length but she was consistent in regard to her case set out in the written statement. No circumstance has been brought to my notice by the learned counsel for the appellant which has not been taken into consideration by the trial Court. The evidence which has been led by the appellant is not worth credence compared to the evidence led by respondent-wife. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that once it is proved on the record that the respondent is staying away from the appellant, it was she who is to explain the circumstances under which she is not staying in her matrimonial home. I find no merit in this contention. As already noticed, it is clear from the reading of the evidence that the appellant and his family members had been making repeated demands for dowry and forced her to leave the matrimonial home. It has also come on the record that the respondent was always ready and willing to go back to her husband along with the minor child but it was the appellant who was not keen to keep her in her matrimonial home. Accordingly, I am of the view that this appeal is without any merit and the same has to be dismissed. It is so ordered.