J.V. Gupta, J. - (1.) This appeal arises out of a petition filed by the husband-appellant, for restitution of conjugal rights, under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter called the Act), which has been dismissed by the trial Court vide judgment dated Oct. 27, 1979.
(2.) The appellant filed a petition under section 9 of the Act, against his wife, the respondent, for the restitution of the conjugal rights, on the allegations that they were married in the month of Aug., 1962, in village Guran, Tehsil Phillaur and had been living together as husband and wife since the year 1971 when the Muklawa ceremony took place in Village Begumpur, Tehsil Phillaur. They cohabited as husband and wife in the said village for a period of five years and six months and during their wedlock one daughter Kamla Wati and one son Pardeep Kumar, were born to the respondent from the loins of the appellant. It was further stated that on Nov., 20 Seebu Ram, brother of the respondent, came to village Begampur and told the appellant that he had come to see them. He stayed with them for the night of Nov. 20, 1976. The next day, in the absence of the appellant, Seebu Ram took away the respondent to village Guran with all the ornaments and valuable clothes worth Rs. 10,000. Thus, the respondent left the matrimonial home without any reasonable excuse. The efforts made subsequently for bringing the respondent back, did not succeed. In the written statement filed on behalf of the respondent, it was pleaded that she never left the company of the appellant at the instance of her brother Sheebu Ram ; nor she took away any valuable articles from the house of the appellant in his absence. In fact, from the very beginning, the appellant treated the respondent with mental as well as physical cruelty and also accused her that she had brought a very meagre dowry. The appellant had beaten the respondent many times, but she continued living with him under such circumstances being a devoted Hindu wife and with the hone that her relations would become normal with her husband but the appellant started illicit relations with a lady of Phillaur and when it was resisted and protested by the respondent, she was given beatine and was pressed for divorce which she refused. Thus, she was turned out of the house by the appellant after giving beating. It was the appellant who had withdrawn from her society and he never came to take her back despite the efforts made by her and her brother as her father had died. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed : 1. Whether the respondent has without reasonable excuse, with drawn from the society of the petitioner ? 2. Relief After assessing the entire evidence, the trial Court came to the conclusion on issue No. 1 that the evidence of the appellant was not convincing that the respondent had left his company without reasonable cause. On the other hand, the evidence of the respondent was most plausible that the appellant was having illicit relations with an outside woman and on the objection of the respondent, she was subjected to cruelty and had been turned out by the appellant from his house. It was further observed that the respondent still appeared to be sincere and was ready to live with the appellant if he leaves the company of that woman. As a result, the petitioner for restitution of rights was dismissed. Feeling aggrieved against the same the husband and has come up in appeal to this Court.
(3.) On Aug. 19, 1990, the counsel for the parties were of the opinion that an effort for compromise may be made. Consequently, the Parties were directed to be present in Court on Sept. 18, 1980 On that day some more time was requested for compromise and the case was adjourned to Oct. 15, 1980. Later on, the learned counsel for the respondent, stated that the compromise between the parties was not possible. Under these circumstances, the case was put up for arguments.;