JUDGMENT
Adarsh Kumar Goel, J.
1. The Appellant-husband has filed this appeal against the dismissal of his petition for restitution of conjugal rights.
2. The husband filed the petition for restitution of conjugal rights on 23.5.1996 alleging inter alia that the marriage between the parties took place in the year 1989; no issue was born out of the wedlock; the husband had three issues from the first wife who had died; the wife had withdrawn from the society of the husband without any reasonable excuse; the wife used to the insist that the husband should take separate residence from his parents and children which was not acceptable to the husband; the wife refused to cook and serve food, she went to her parents place on the pretext that she wanted to see them but she took away her belongings and thereafter refused to resume cohabitation. The wife contested the petition stating inter alia, that the husband had filed this petition to avoid maintenance proceedings; dispute arose between the parties on account of cruel treatment meted cut to the wife by the children from the previous marriage and the husband gave beating to the wife and turned her out of the matrimonial home threatening her the death if she entered the house of the husband.
3. After appreciating the evidence on record, the trial court held that the wife had withdrawn from the society of the husband without reasonable cause as she has been terrorised by the husband and his children which was clear from the evidence of the wife who appeared in the witness box as RW1 and was also supported by her father Sardara Singh RW2 and Sarpanch Wariam Singh RW3. The trial Court also referred to the observations of the Magistrate in maintenance proceedings while noting that the said observations were not binding.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the trial Court has erred in observing that the petition filed is a counter blast to the maintenance proceedings which was not a fact, he also states that the wife has stated that she was not willing to go to the matrimonial home. Learned counsel for the appellant relied on Brij lal v. Krishna, (1996-3) 114 P.L.R. 357; Smt. Nirmala Devi v. Pritam Singh, 1988(1) H.L.R. 760; Baljit Singh v. Maju Kaur, 1990(1) H.L.R. 65; Smt. Santosh Kumar v. Rajesh Kumar, (1988-1) 93 P.L.R. 145 and Shardu Rani v. Mangal Ram, (1990-1) 97 P.L.R. 323 and submitted that since wife was not willing to live with the husband any reasonable cause, the trial Court ought to have granted decree for restitution as sought by the husband.
5. I have considered the submissions of the counsel for the appellant and have perused of the record of the case and the decisions cited at the bar.
6. In my view, there is no infirmity in the reasoning and conclusion of the trial court. The main finding of the trial court, with which I concur, is that the wife had reasonable cause for withdrawing from the company of the husband. The children from the previous marriage of the husband were adult and were held to have terrorised the wife to such an extent that the apprehension of the wife was reasonable that it will not be safe for her to return to the matrimonial home. The trial court has believed the version of the wife and nothing has been shown as to why the said version should not have been believed. Even if the observation that the husband’s petition was a counter-blast to the maintenance proceedings filed by the wife is ignored the conclusion of the trial Court, not being based on the said observation alone, cannot be assailed. There is no dispute with the prepositions laid down in the decisions cited at the bar that if wife withdraw from the husband’s society without reasonable cause, the husband is entitled to seek a decree for restitution. The present case, however, is different on facts. In the present case, the wife has a genuine apprehension. She has been so maltreated, harassed and terrorised that her apprehension of being unsafe in husband’s house cannot be said to be ill-founded. The decisions cited, therefore, do not help the appellant.
For the above, reasons, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed.