GEETA RANI Vs. SUNIL KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment and decree dated 06.09.2018, passed by the Ld. District Judge (Addl. Family Court), Karnal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Ld. Family Court'), whereby, the petition filed by the respondent-husband under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for brevity 'the Act'), seeking restitution of conjugal rights, was allowed.

(2.) A few facts necessary for adjudication of the case, as narrated in the petition filed by the respondent-husband (appellant therein) before the Ld. Family Court, may be noticed. The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 25.11.2007 as per the Hindu rites and ceremonies at Village Ramba, Distt. Karnal. Out of the said wedlock, a male child was born in the year 2009. The marriage was simple in nature sans any dowry and only customary gifts were exchanged between the parties. The respondent-husband cared for his appellant-wife and showered her with love and affection but the same was not reciprocated by the appellant-wife who would often quarrel and insult the respondent-husband and his family on some pretext or the other. The appellant-wife would many a times leave the house in the morning and not return till late in the evening. When questioned, she would threaten the respondent-husband and his family to falsely implicate them in a case of dowry. It was also averred that the appellant-wife was an educated lady wanting to lead a life of luxury, who had gone to the extent of even telling the respondent-husband that she felt suffocated in their house and was unable to live with him and his family. Several Panchayats were convened by by the respondent-husband and his family to bring about a reconciliation between them, but in vain. Finally, in January, 2011, the appellant-wife went to her parental house along with the minor child on the pretext of attending her cousin's marriage. While going, she took along all her jewellery, clothes and costly articles. When the respondent-husband went to bring her back from her parental home, she refused to accompany him, and rather threatened that he would be falsely implicated in criminal cases. Soon thereafter, the appellant-wife lodged an FIR bearing No. 800, dated 12.11.2013, under Sections 406, 498A IPC, against the respondent-husband. She also filed a complaint under the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act (in short 'the DV Act') against the respondenthusband and his family. A petition under the Guardian and Wards Act for the custody of their minor son was also filed by the respondent-husband.

(3.) Per contra, the appellant-wife (respondent therein) in her written statement filed before the Ld. Family Court, refuted and categorically denied the averments made in the petition filed by the respondent-husband by submitting that in fact, it was the respondent-husband, who had himself thrown her out from the matrimonial home after subjecting her to harsh treatment including severe beatings. She submitted that the respondent-husband and his family were dissatisfied with the dowry articles given to her at the time of the marriage, even though her parents had spent about Rs. 10.00 lakh on her marriage. She further submitted that the entire expenses at the time of the birth of her son were borne by her parents and a lot of gifts were given. She was mercilessly beaten up by the respondent-husband at the behest and instigation of his parents when her father expressed his inability to accede to their demand of a car. Besides this, the appellant-wife levelled serious allegations against the respondent-husband and his family running a prostitution den in a portion of their house and on her objecting to the same, she was subjected to merciless beatings. As per her submissions, the respondent-husband behaved well for sometime after the birth of their child, but the same was short-lived and finally in January, 2011, she was thrown out of her matrimonial home after being assaulted with a 'danda'. Her minor son too was not spared who also suffered an injury on his head as a result of 'danda' blow and for which he had to be hospitalized. A Panchayat was convened by the father of the appellant-wife in April, 2011, but the same failed to yield any positive result, as the respondenthusband and his family stuck to their demand of more dowry including a car. When all efforts to bring about an amicable settlement between the parties failed, the father of the appellant-wife asked the respondent-husband and his family to return all the dowry articles, but they misbehaved with her father and threatened him with dire consequences, if such demands were raised ever again. It was submitted that it was in this factual background that an FIR was lodged against the respondent-husband and his family and a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was filed by the appellant-wife. She further submitted that the petition under Section 9 of the Act filed by husband was in retaliation to the FIR and complaint under Section 12 of the DV Act as well as petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by her.