JUDGMENT
Viney Mittal, J.
1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant-wife Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur against whom a decree of restitution of conjugal rights has been passed by the learned trial Court.
2. Hereinafter for the sake of convenience the parties would be referred to as the “wife” and “husband” respectively.
3. Attar Singh husband (the respondent herein) filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) on March 17, 1998 before the learned trial Court against wife Sukhwinder Kaur (the present appellant). In the aforesaid petition it was stated that the marriage between the parties was solemnised on March 24, 1996 at village Rehlan according to Sikh rites. After the marriage the parties lived together at village Manipur and cohabited as husband and wife. A female daughter namely, Simranjit Kaur was born on January 1, 1997. At present the said child is living with the wife.
4. Both the parties are working as teachers in the Government Primary Schools. Whereas the husband is posted at village Jandowal, the wife is posted at village Durgri Awana. The husband has stated that after living for sometime at village Manipur in the house of the husband, the wife subsequently went to live with her mother at village Rehlan. She stayed with her mother for about two moths and thereafter was brought back to village Manipur. During the last week of September, 1996, the wife was taken by her mother to village Rehlan on the occasion of her first delivery. In the month of April, 1997, the wife and child were brought back to village Majpur by the husband. The wife was unable to adjust herself in the family of the husband and was feeling suffocation in the joint family. The husband states that he managed a separate house for their residence and they lived in that house only for about a fortnight, when again one day the wife left the house in the morning to attend her school but did not return back in the evening. In fact she had gone to live with her mother at village Rehlan without taking permission of the husband. She was contacted and asked to come back but she refused.
5. Further case put up by the husband is that he contacted the maternal uncle of the wife. With his efforts, the wife joined the husband at village Rehlan on May 17, 1997. She again left the house in July 17, 1997 with a promise to return back. She did not return back. Again an effort was made and her maternal uncle was also approached. With the efforts made by them, the wife returned to the matrimonial home on September 25, 1997. The parties lived together for a fortnight again. Once again, thereafter the wife did not return back to the house after the school hours. She was contacted. This time she refused to join the husband at village Manjpur and rather asked him to come to village Rehlan and live with her as she was required to serve her widowed mother in her old age. The husband claims that he did not cheerish the idea of living as a “ghar jawai” (a resident son-in-law).
6. On December 24, 1997, a group of teachers contacted the wife. She told the aforesaid group that she would convey her decision after consulting he family at village Rehlan. Subsequently, brother of the wife conveyed that she was not agreeable to live with her in laws. On January 2, 1998 a meeting of both the Panchayats of village Manjpur and village Rehlan was convened in which it was resolved that the husband should take the wife on January 18, 1998. Accordingly, the husband went to village Rehlan on that day but she refused to accompany him and still insisted that the husband should come and stay with her at village Rehlan. The husband has stated that at that time the respectable of both the villages Manjpur and Rehlan were present in the meeting held on January 2, 1998. The husband claims that the father of the wife is not alive and her mother has become old. Both of her brothers are in service and are living separate from their mother and, therefore, the wife was adamant not to leave the house of her parents in the village.
7. On the basis of the aforesaid facts, the husband has claimed that wife Sukhwinder Kaur was living separately from husband Attar Singh without any sufficient cause and, therefore, on that basis the present petition under Section 9 the Act seeking a decree for restitution of conjugal rights was filed by the husband.
8. Upon receipt of the notice of the petition, the wife appeared. She filed a written statement contesting the claim of the husband. The factum of the marriage was admitted. It was also admitted that a daughter named Simranjit Kaur was born from the wedlock. It was also admitted that the parties are working as teachers in Government Primary Schools. It was stated by the wife that the husband was posted at village Jandowal whereas the wife was serving in village Dugri Awana. The fact that she had left the house of the husband without any sufficient cause was denied. It was stated by her that she had two brothers and one of them is permanently living in the village with the mother and the other brother also used to come to the village during holidays and wives of both the brothers were permanently residing with her mother and, therefore, there was no question of her wanting to reside with her mother to look after her. On the other hand, it was claimed by the wife that right from beginning the attitude of the husband towards her mother was unbecoming of an educated person and the wife has been subjected to all kind of physical and mental torture. The allegations with regard to demand of dowry and maltreatment because of insufficient dowry were also made in the written statement. In fact it was also stated that the wife had earlier filed a petition under Sections 498A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code. It was claimed by the wife that her marriage was celebrated with full pomp and show and that the parents of the wife had spent a huge amount at the time of marriage. She maintained that the husband and his family members are very greedy persons and have made constant demands of more dowry.
9. The wife has also stated that the husband has been pressuring her to bring Rs. two lacs from her parents and in the alternative to get her share in the property of her father. When the parents of the wife came to know about the physical beatings and other unreasonable demands of the husband, they went to the place of the husband but were not treated properly. Under these circumstances, the wife had to leave the matrimonial home in disgust on the same day. It was claimed that she was compelled to leave her matrimonial home due to the cruel behaviour of the husband and his family members and she has to withdraw from the society of the husband without any reasonable cause.
10. The parties led evidence before the learned trial Court. The learned trial court after taking into consideration the respective evidence led by the parties held that there was no reasonable excuse made out to justify the separate residence of the wife from the husband. On the basis of the aforesaid finding, the trial court decreed the petition for restitution of conjugal rights filed by the husband. Now the wife is aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court and has filed the present appeal challenging the same.
11. During the pendency of the present appeal vide an order dated May 11, 2001, the parties were directed to be present in person on July 6, 2001. On the aforesaid adjourned date the respondent-husband had put in appearance but the appellant-wife chose not to appear. Subsequently also on all the adjourned dates, the appellant-wife never appeared.
12. I have perused the judgment of the trial court and have also gone through the entire record of the case including the grounds of appeal taken by the appellant-wife in the present appeal. The factum of the parties leaving separately is not disputed by the appellant-wife. It is also not in dispute that their have been various efforts made by the various panchayats convened at the behest of the respondent-husband. In these circumstances, under the provisions of Section 9 of the Act once the factum of living separately and withdrawal by the one spouse from the company of the other spouse is admitted then it is for the spouse withdrawing from the company to show reasonable excuse for such withdrawal. In fact explanation to Section 9 of the Act reads as under:
“Where a question arises whether there has been reasonable excuse for withdrawal from the society, the burden of proving reasonable excuse shall on the person who has withdrawn from the society.”
In view of the aforesaid, provisions it was for the wife (the present appellant) to show that there was sufficient or reasonable cause for her to have withdrawn from the company of the respondent-husband and to live separately.
13. The evidence produced by the respondent comprises of RW1 Shiv Singh, RW2 Gurmel Singh and RW3 Jaswinder Singh, whereas Sukhwinder Kaur appellant-wife herself stepped into the witness box as RW4.
14. Shiv Singh RW1 and Jaswinder Singh RW3 (who is brother of the wife) went to the house of the husband in the month of October, 1997 for effectiving reconciliation between them. They have also deposed that they contacted the Sarpanch who accompanied them. On the other hand, while appearing as he own witness, the wife has categorically stated that the Sarpanch of the village Manjpur did not accompany her brother. The aforesaid Sarpanch Gurdial Singh has been produced as a witness by the husband as PW2.
15. The basic plea raised by the appellant-wife to justify her separate living is the alleged mal-treatment given to her by the husband and his family members and the constant demand of dowry. Nothing has been shown on the record that any such demand of dowry was ever made. Similarly, the evidence on the record does not justify, the allegations of mal-treatment as true.
16. On the other hand, the plea raised by the husband is that the wife had agreed to live with the husband but had demanded the he should live in the village of the wife so that she could serve her mother. It has also been shown in the evidence of the husband that at one stage, the wife had agreed to join the matrimonial home in the village of the husband but on the next day her brother came and told that she was not willing.
17. After going through the entire matter and taking into consideration the various pleas raised by the parties and also the fact that the wife has chosen not to appear even once, even on directions issued by this court, I do not find that there was any justification in terms of Section 9 of the Act which could provide any reasonable excuse or sufficient cause to the appellant-wife to withdraw from the company of her husband.
18. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, I do not find there is any infirmity in the finding recorded by the learned trial Court. Thus, the present appeal being devoid of any merit is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.