I. S. Tiwana, J. - (1.) The appellant-wife makes a grouse of the decree passed against her under section 9 of The the Hindu Marriage Act (for short, the Act) for restitution of conjugal rights.
(2.) The short and the precise case of the respondent-husband is that, she has withdrawn from his company with effect from 10th June, 1978, without any just and sufficient cause with a view to put their marital status to an end has, thus, deserted him. The grounds pleaded by the appellant for her withdrawal from the company of her husband are as follows:- "Firstly, that the respondent and his family members used to ask her to bring money from her parents; secondly, that the petitioner was having illicit relations with the brother's wife: and thirdly, that she was given merciless beatings and turned out of the house a number of times without food and clothes; and fourthly that at one time the petitioner and his family tried to kill her by sprinkling the kerosene oil on her". The solitary issue on which the parties put to trial reads as follows:- "Whether respondent has withdrawn from the society of the petitioner with just and sufficient cause ? OPR" After a thorough examination of the evidence on record, the learned trial court has come to the conclusion that appellant has miserably failed to prove any of the causes pleaded by her for staying away from the company of the respondent-husband. To my mind, it is not necessary to delve deep into the entire evidence on record in view of the statement of the appellant herself as RW 1 which is enough to throw away her case. After stating that she had been given a beating by Balbir Singh, brother of the respondent, on 9th June, 1978, which matter was reported to the police and later compromised, she has made a categorical statement in later part of her statement during cross-examination that "but for the suspicion of the illicit relations of Sham Singh (respondent) and Sarabjit Kaur, there is no other cause of not living with the petitioner". Again, about this relationship all that she had to say in this statement is that "I had only a suspicion about the character of my husband and about the illicit relations of my husband with Sarabjit Kaur, otherwise I never noticed any such thing about which I can form my opinion about the illicit relations of my husband with Sarabjit Kaur". It is, thus, patent from this part of the statement of the appellant that but for her misplaced or ill-founded suspicion against the character of her husband she has not other ground or justification to stay away from him. Even for this suspicion, as is admitted by her, she is not in a position to refer to any facts or conduct of the respondent which could give rise to the suspicion in her mind. As against this stand of hers, what her father as RW 2 has to say about the differences between the parties is that "it was with respect to the dowry and besides that there was no other cause of dispute". A bare reading of these two statements makes it clear that the daughter(appellant) and the father are not very clear as to what has to pleaded as a justification for appellant's staying away from the company of the respondent. In the light of this conclusion of mine I do not feel it necessary to refer to the rest of the evidence on record and unhesitatingly affirm the findings recorded by the trial court.
(3.) For the reasons recorded above this appeal fails and is dismissed but with no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.;