F.A.O. No.68-M of 1997 -1-
*****
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
F.A.O. No.68-M of 1997
Date of decision : 16.1.2009
Balbir Kaur .....Appellant
Versus
Charanjit Singh ...Respondent
****
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND
Present: None
S. D. ANAND, J.
The respondent-husband filed a plea under Section 9 of the
Hindu Marriage Act ( hereinafter referred as “the Act”) for restitution of
conjugal rights on a pure and simple averment that the appellant-wife had
withdrawn from his conjugal company without any reasonable cause.
The allegations of the appellant-wife at the trial were as
under:-
Mst. Surjit Kaur, a sister of father of the appellant-wife, also
got married to Lachman Singh, a real brother of the respondent-husband.
That marriage had taken place on the very day the parties to the present
cause got married. Mst. Surjit Kaur was maltreated by Lachman Singh
aforementioned who (Lachman Singh) obtained an exparte decree of
divorce against Mst. Surjit Kaur. That decree was obtained on the basis of
factual misrepresentation. A revision petition filed by Mst. Surjit Kaur
against the exparte decree of divorce is pending consideration at the
hands of the District Judge, Bathinda. When the appellant-wife indicated a
F.A.O. No.68-M of 1997 -2-
*****
grievance in that behalf, the respondent-husband belaboured and turned
her out of the matrimonial house in three bare clothes. She is putting up
thereafter at her natal house.
The respondent-husband also raised a plea that he had taken
a Panchayat to obtain restitution of conjugal rights but it did not bear any
fruit.
It is apparent from the record that appellant-wife does not
dispute having withdrawn from the conjugal company of the respondent-
husband on her own. However, she pleaded that she had parted company
with respondent-husband for a sufficient cause inasmuch as she had been
belaboured and turned out of the matrimonial house when she made a
grievance of the fact that Lachman Singh ( a real brother of respondent-
husband) had obtained an exparte decree of divorce (against her father’s
sister) on the basis of factual misrepresentation.
The testimony on oath of the respondent-husband that he
endeavoured reconciliation is proved by the deposition of AW-1 Labh
Singh, Sarpanch, AW-2 Baldev Singh and AW-3 Labh Singh (AW-1 and
AW-3 are different individuals bearing the same name), all of whom
testified on oath that they had accompanied the appellant to effect
reconciliation between the parties but that the respondent-wife was
adamant and not ready to live with the appellant-husband. That part of the
evidence is buttressed by the fact that, even in the course of cross-
examination, the appellant-wife declined to go to the matrimonial house at
any cost. A similar stance had been taken up by her at the time the
statutory reconciliation efforts were made at the trial. While refusing to go
to the matrimonial house, the respondent-wife averred that she would not
go with her husband at any cost as there is danger to her life. However,
F.A.O. No.68-M of 1997 -3-
*****
there is not even a word in her pleadings that she apprehended danger to
her life. It requires pointed notice that she had conceded, in the cross-
examination, that she herself left her matermonial house because her
paternal aunt had been deserted by Lachman Singh who was a real
brother of the appellant-husband. Thus, the respondent-wife has not been
able to prove that her withdrawal from conjugal company of her husband
was for sufficient cause.
In terms of the provisions of Hindu law, marriage is considered
a sacrament in the Indian society. Minor aberrations in behaviour,
obviously, would not furnish a sufficient ground to any spouse to withdraw
from the conjugal company of other spouse. Such like aberrations are
termed as the routine wear and tear of marriage life. A marriage brings
together two grown up individuals who have spent atl `east two decades
in their natal families. Each individual comes from a family having its own
own thoughts and values of life. It is in that backdrop that routine
aberrations are termed to be insufficient to justify withdrawal from the
matrimonial company. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that the plea
taken up by the appellant-wife for leaving her matrimonial house is correct,
it cannot nonetheless be denied that it was she only who left the
matrimonial house of her own. The mere fact that the relationship between
her paternal aunt and her husband (who happened to be real brother of
respondent-husband) was far from easy, would not furnish sufficient cause
to the appellant-wife to wreck her own matrimonial nest.
It is further apparent from the record that appellant-wife had
through out indicated that she has not inclined to cohabit with the
respondent-husband. That stance was taken up by her at the time the
reconciliation efforts were made by the Trial Court. That attitude was
F.A.O. No.68-M of 1997 -4-
*****
indicated by her even in the course of her cross-examination. As against
it, the respondent-husband had through out been expressing inclination to
resume co-habitation with the appellant-wife.
The finding recorded by the learned Trial court is well
reasoned and thoroughly appropriate in character, besides being relate-
able to the material obtaining on the file. The petition is held to be
denuded of merit and is ordered to be dismissed.
January 16, 2009 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE