SMT. TIRATH KAUR W/O KIRPAL SINGH Vs. KIRPAL SINGH S/O RAM SINGH
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Smt. Tirath Kaur W/O Kirpal Singh
Kirpal Singh S/O Ram Singh
Click here to view full judgement.
A.N. Grover, J. -
(1.)THIS is an appeal against a decree for restitution of conjugal rights granted in a petition tiled by the husband under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
(2.)IT is not disputed that the marriage between the parties took place in 1953 and the muklawa ceremony was performed in the following year. The parties resided and cohabited together until January 1958. According to the husband, the wife deserted him in January 1958 without any reasonable cause. It was alleged that he went to the house of his father -in -law to bring her back but the wife was not sent on one excuse or the other. Later on, a Panchayat was taken in June 1958 but the wife's father refused flatly to send her with him.
The version of the wife is that in 1958 the financial position of the husband was not satisfactory. He started pressing her to take some training and join service. She passed, her Middle School Examination. As the husband was not able to bear her expenses of training, he started pressing her to get the expenses from her own parents. She, therefore, came to her parental home and prevailed upon her father to arrange for training for her in the Diploma Course in tailoring. She joined a school at Hoshiarpur and was successful in obtaining a Diploma in tailoring in the month of April 1959. According to her, even after completing her course she went to the husband and started living with him and even while she was doing her course, she used to visit him off and on. She then joined as a teacher in the tailoring school at village Muradpur Khunkhun at the instance of the husband where she served for about a month. Later on, she got a job with a better salary under the Block Development Officer, Una, and was posted at village Rainsari. The husband used to visit her off and on there and used to take major portion of her salary. She even sent a money order of Rs. 40/ - to the father of the husband. She asserted that in the month of August 1960 the husband came to see her and demanded more money from her but as she expressed her inability to give him anything, he got annoyed and filed the present petition in August 1960. The allegation of desertion was controverted She stoutly maintained throughout that she had never withdrawn from the society of her husband and had all along behaved like a most dutiful wife and was prepared to allow him to some and stay with her and that she would be prepared to go and (sic) with him during the holidays.
The husband was examined by the trial Court under Order X, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure before the issues were framed. He admitted that once in the month of August 1960 he had visited her and had passed one night and had cohabited with her. The Court below then recorded the statement of the father of the husband who admitted that he received a money order of Rs. 40/ -from his daughter -in -law. He also admitted that she Had visited his village to cast her vote in the Gurdwara elections and she had lived there for about 7 clays or so The husband was examined further and he took up the position that he did not want his wife to remain in service and he wanted her to come and stay with him and cook his meals and serve his aged parents.
(3.)THE main points which were put into issue and Which had to be decided were whether the wile had Withdrawn from the society of the husband without any reasonable excuse and whether the petition was not bona fide. The Court found, after a consideration of the statements given in the witness -box by the parties as also the other evidence, that whatever the position was prior to August 1960 when the husband cohabited with the wife during that month, which was admitted, the previous default, If any, on the part of the wife had been condoned and it could be said that up till August 1960 she did nor withdraw from his society without any reasonable excuse the Court below, however, proceeded to say that the Husband was justified in asking the wife to live with him even if she had to give up service but as she was not prepared' to do so on any condition whatsoever and the Conjugal, duties could not be performed by living at such a distance, the husband was entitled to the restitution claim.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.