- (1.) PRAFULLA C. Pant, J. This appeal, preferred under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 read with Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, is directed against the judgment and order dated 7-1-2008, passed by the Judge, Family Court, Udham Singh Nagar, in Suit No. 24 of 2006, whereby the said Court has decreed the suit for resti tution of conjugal rights filed by the respondent (husband ).
(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties and perused the lower Court record. Brief facts of the case are that the present respondent got married to the appellant of 8th December 2003, according to the Sikh rites. After her marriage appellant started living in her husband's house in Gadarpur. Husband's (present respondent) case is that he main tained his wife and looked after her well when she lived with him. But, she (appellant) was a woman of independent thoughts. She is a teacher in Government school, she did not adhere to any family traditions and limitations. However, on 11-10- 2004, a son was born out of the wedlock and after 1 months of birth of son, the appellant left her husband's house and started living along with her son in her parental house. It is alleged that the present respondent made efforts to call back his wife but to no avail. Alleging that the appellant has withdrawn from the society of present respondent, the petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, was filed by him before the family Court, Udham Singh Nagar. The appellant contested the suit and filed her written statement in which she admitted the marriage between the parties to suit and that a son named Rabreet Singh born out of the wedlock. It is also not disputed that she is a teacher. However, rest of the contents of the suit are denied by the wife (appellant ). It is pleaded in the written statement that she used to be harassed by her husband and in- laws, for bringing insufficient dowry. It is further pleaded by the appellant in her writ ten statement filed before the trial Court that her husband has kept all her jewellery and money with him. It is further alleged by the appellant that her husband and in-laws were greedy. According to the appellant, as stated by her in her written statement, on 14-3-2005, she was ousted from the house of her hus band and she was beaten and abuses were hurled on her. It is further stated that on 15-3-2005, she had to go to the Government Hospital for her treatment. Admitting that once Devendra Pal Singh (present respon dent) came to the house of the parents of the appellant, it is pleaded that he did not ask her to accompany him to his house.
(3.) ON the basis of the pleadings of the par ties, following issues were framed by the trial Court: (i) Whether, the defendant Manpreet Kaur has withdrawn from the society of her hus band, without any sufficient reason? (ii) Whether, the plaintiff Devendra Pal Singh has insulted his wife, and harassed her? (iii) Whether, the suit for restitution of conjugal rights deserves to be decreed? After recording the evidence of the par ties and hearing them, the trial Court decided all the issues in favour of the husband and decreed the suit for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Aggrieved by said judgment and order dated 7-1-2008, passed by Judge, Fam ily Court, Udham Singh Nagar, in Suit No. 24 of 2006, this appeal is filed by the wife.;