R.N.Mittel, J. - (1.) This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the Subordinate Judge, First Class, Samrala, dated March 3, 1972, by the wife.
(2.) The facts of the present appeal are that the husband, Raj Kumar, was married to Kamla Rani, appellant, on Jan. 15, 1959, at Kharar. She lived and cohabited with him for four years at Samrala and Tata Nagar. Two sons were born out of the wedlock. The younger son died two days after his birth. The wife had withdrawn from the society of the husband without any reasonable excuse. The husband filed the petition under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (here in after referred to as 'the Act") praying for restitution of conjugal rights. The wife contested the petition and inter alia pleaded in the written statement that the husband had been treating her with cruelty and give beatings to her several times. Site further stated that it was not safe for her to use with him. The trial Court held that the wife had deserted the husband without reasonable cause and that she was not maltreated by the husband. Consequently, it decreed the petition of the husband. The wife has come up in appeal against the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge, First Class, Samrala, to this court.
(3.) The only contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the wife was treated with cruelty by the husband and that he was not entitled to the decree for restitution of conjugal rights. The husband examined P/W. 1 Sat Dev who stated that in the mouth of April, 1968, he along with Kharaiti Lal, Rattan Singh and the husband went to Kharar in order to bring the respondent. They met her father. After some times, be brought the wife. They asked her if she was willing to accompany them to the husband's house. She replied in the negative. They acquired her about the reason for not going to him. She told that there was nothing wrong and that she had passed J B.T. and was earning about र 250. They again went to the house of the father of the wife on August. 28, 1969. In the Court of Judge at Kharar, the respondent stated that she was willing to accompany the husband in case she was paid र 3,000.00. The case was adjourned to Sept. 2, 1969. On that date, in the Court, Ram Kishan, father of the husband paid र 3,000.00 to the wife. Next morning. they asked Banwari La1, her father, to send her with them. He replied that he had no faith in them and that a pronote for र 5,000.00 should be executed by the husband in his favour. On refusal to do so by the husband, Banaari Lal, her father, refused to send the wife. He is supported in his statement by P.W. 2 Rattan Singh and the petitioner who appeared as P.W. 4. Their statement is corroborated by the statement e f the wife. Exhibit P. 3, dated March, 1969, in proceeding under Sec. 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, started by her against the husband. She stated therein that her husband had paid र 3,000.00 to her and that she would live with him at his house. Her application under section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure may be dismissed. She did not appear in the witness box to deny the said allegation in spite of the fact that she was given several opportunities to appear. Her case was closed by the trial court against which she came up in revision to this Court in Shrimati Kamla Rani Vs. Raj Kumar, Civil Revision No. 1096 of 1971, decided on Nov. 30, 1971 . R.S. Narula, J., before whom the revision petition came up for hearing allowed the same and directed that the trial Court should allow one more opportunity to her to put herself in the witness box. In spite of that order, she did not choose to appears her own witness. Therefore, an inference is to be drawn that if she had appeared in evidence, she could not support her case. She produced R.W. 1, Mohan Singh i R.W. 2 Jaswant Singh. The learned trial Court has for the reasons recorded in the judgment disbelieved their testimony. I have gone through their statements and the learned counsel for the appellant has not been able point out that the appraisal of the evidence made by the trial Court erroneous. The learned counsel for the appellant has also referred to the statement of P.W. 3 Hardwari Lal who stated that his house was adjacent to that of the petitioner About 701/4 years back at about 4.00 P. M., he saw the husband and the wife quarrelling with each other. Thereafter the wife stated that ate would not live there and then she left the husband's house. He has stated about the quarrel between the partied one occasion. The learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently urged that even one of the witnesses of the husband has supported her. The might have been a quarrel between the husband and the wife once deposed by P.W. 3 Hardwari Lal, but that is not sufficient to show that there are sufficient reasons for her to live away from her husband. In the circumstances aforesaid, I do not find sufficient reasons for interfering with the conclusions arrived at by the trial Court.;