- (1.) This is first appeal by Gurdeep Kaur against her husband Surinder Singh directed against the judgment of Shri Kartar Singh, District Judge, Kapurthala dated August 2, 1969, allowing the petition for restitution of conjugal rights filed by the husband against the wife under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 .
(2.) The facts leading to the present appeal are as under :- The petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act was filed by the husband against the wife on March 14, 1969. Two and a half years prior to the institution of the petition, they were married at village Bishanpur, where the parents of the wife reside. After the marriage, they lived together in the house of the husband at Mansurwal. The wife is fat and of dark complexion,. The husband started belaboring her and illtreating her. In July/August, 1967, when she was pRegulation nt, she was left by the husband at the house of her parents at village Bishanpur. There she gave birth to a child. The attempts made for the wife being taken back by the husband in his house proved abortive. The husband did not care to send any money or any gift to the wife while so living in the house of her parents in village Bishanpur.
(3.) On March 11, 1969, the wife filed an application against the husband under Section 488, Criminal Procedure Code for fixation of maintenance allowance in the Court of a Judicial Magistrate at Kapurthala. On that date, the husband was admittedly present in Kapurthala. Two days later, the husband moved the District Judge against the wife for decree for restitution of conjugal rights on the grounds, that after the marriage, the wife left him in July/August, 1967, that since then she had withdrawn herself from his society, that the husband left her in her parents' house at village Bishanpur and that there she gave birth to a child and did not return to him. He added that in spite of his having organised for her return a Panchayat at Kapurthala on the date, when application under Section 488, Criminal Procedure Code had been filed by the wife and once earlier than that, she refused to come back to him. In reply, the wife contended that on account of her being fat and of dark complexion, the husband did not like her, that he used to give her beating and maltreat her, that when she was about to deliver a child, the husband refused to keep her in his house and brought her in July or August, 1967, to the house of her parents and left her there, that neither on the occasion of birth of a daughter to her more thereafter the husband ever cared to come to her or to take her back to his house and that he had deserted her without just cause. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :- (1) Whether the petitioner used to illtreate and belabour the respondent and ultimately left her in the house of her parents in July, 1967 ? (2) Whether there is reasonable apprehension to the respondent that if she would go to the petitioner, her life would be endangered ? (3) Whether the petitioner had instituted this case as a counter-blast to the maintenance application made by the respondent for maintenance under Section 488, Criminal Procedure Code ? (4) Whether the application has been made by the petitioner without undue delay ? (5) Whether the application has not been made by the petitioner in collusion with the respondent ? (6) Whether the respondent had deserted the petitioner and he is entitled to decree for restitution of conjugal rights ?";