Adarsh Kumar Goel, J. - (1.) THE Appellant -husband has filed this appeal against the dismissal of his petition for restitution of conjugal rights.
(2.) THE husband filed the petition for restitution of conjugal rights on 23.5.1996 alleging inter alia that the marriage between the parties took place in the year 1989; no issue was born out of the wedlock; the husband had three issues from the first wife who had died; the wife had withdrawn from the society of the husband without any reasonable excuse; the wife used to the insist that the husband should take separate residence from his parents and children which was not acceptable to the husband; the wife refused to cook and serve food, she went to her parents place on the pretext that she wanted to see them but she took away her belongings and thereafter refused to resume cohabitation. The wife contested the petition stating inter alia, that the husband had filed this petition to avoid maintenance proceedings; dispute arose between the parties on account of cruel treatment meted cut to the wife by the children from the previous marriage and the husband gave beating to the wife and turned her out of the matrimonial home threatening her the death if she entered the house of the husband. After appreciating the evidence on record, the trial court held that the wife had withdrawn from the society of the husband without reasonable cause as she has been terrorised by the husband and his children which was clear from the evidence of the wife who appeared in the witness box as RW1 and was also supported by her father Sardara Singh RW2 and Sarpanch Wariam Singh RW3. The trial Court also referred to the observations of the Magistrate in maintenance proceedings while noting that the said observations were not binding.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant submitted that the trial Court has erred in observing that the petition filed is a counter blast to the maintenance proceedings which was not a fact, he also states that the wife has stated that she was not willing to go to the matrimonial home. Learned counsel for the appellant relied on Brij lal v. Krishna, 1996 3 P.L.R. 357 , Smt. Nirmala Devi v. Pritam Singh, 1988(1) H.L.R. 760 , Baljit Singh v. Maju Kaur, 1990(1) H.L.R. 65 , Smt. Santosh Kumar v. Rajesh Kumar, (1988 -1) 93 P.L.R. 145 and Shardu Rani v. Mangal Ram, 1990 1 P.L.R. 323 and submitted that since wife was not willing to live with the husband any reasonable cause, the trial Court ought to have granted decree for restitution as sought by the husband.;