N.C.JAIN, J. - (1.) THIS appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree passed by the Senior Subordinate Judge, Gurdaspur, allowing the petition of the husband for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act ).
(2.) THE petition under Section 9 of the Act was filed by the husband with the averments that the marriage between the parties was solemnised on 2. 4. 1983 at Amritsar according to Hindu rites and that the wife stayed along with the petitioner-husband at Dhariwal for about one week after the marriage. The respondent was employed as a teacher at Amritsar and she left for Amritsar to join her service. It is further averred that the petitioner-husband used to bring the wife to the matrimonial home on Saturday and that the wife used to leave for Amritsar on Monday. The aforesaid arrangement continued for about one month during which period they cohabited with each other. After one month, the respondent-wife began to quarrel with the husband and his parents. She refused to accompany the husband to the matrimonial home. The husband has further averred that he went to take her but instead of accompanying him, he was told that he should dislodge his relation with his parents and live at Amritsar but the later refused to agree with the suggestions. The husband has averred that he asked his wife that he has applied for his transfer near Dhariwal and she should also move for transfer near Dhariwal so that they could live happily. The respondent-wife rafused to apply for the transfer near Dhariwal. It is further the case of the husband that the parents of the wife and one Hira Lal Sharma, Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police pressurised to him to settle at Amritsar. The aforesaid Hira Lal Sharma is alleged to have threatened the husband that in case he docs not start living at Amritsar after bringing all the dowry articles, he would be killed, it has further been averred in the petition that Hira Lal Sharma had beaten him once and even his mother was thrown away when she tried to intervene. The matter was reported to the Police Station Dhariwal. Upon this some respectable persons were called and a compromise was effected according to which the wife was to come and live with the husband at Dhariwal in some other house other than the parents house. It has further been averred that according to the compromise, he went to take the wife but the respondent flatly refused to live together. It is further the allegation of the husband that the wife has taken away all the gold ornaments given by his parents weighing about eight tolas and other valuable clothes. The dowry articles were also alleged to have been removed from the house of the husband by the brothers of the wife and Hira Lal Sharma, A. S. I. By making the afore-mentioned averments it was submitted in the petition that the respondent has withdrawn from the society of the applicant-husband without reasonable excuse and therefore, he was entitled to a decree for restitution of conjugal rights. The averments made in the petition were denied giving rise to the following issues : (1) Whether the respondent has withdrawn from the society of the petitioner for reasonable excuse ? (2) If issue No. 1 is proved, whether the respondent has withdrawn from the society of the petitioner for reasonable excuse ? (3) Relief. Both the issues 1 and 2 have been decided against the wife. Feeling dis-satisfied, she has filed the present appeal. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the pleadings of the parties and the evidence brought on the record of the case. Having given thoughtful consideration to the entire material brought on the record of the case, I am of the view that there is absolutely no force in the appeal filed by the wife. In the written statement the wife did not deny the factum of having withdrawal from the society of the petitioner and in view thereof the only question which arises for consideration before this Court is whether her withdrawal from the society of the husband is for a reasonable excuse or not. She has categorically stated in her cross-examination that she was not prepared to live with the husband at his parental home. It has been found by the Senior Subordinate Judge that allegations and counter allegations regarding mal-treatment had remained un-substantiated and after scanning the evidence I do not find any reason to differ with the finding. Simply because the husband asked Hira Lal Sharma as to who he was after seeking him in the company of his wife, does not mean any aspersion on the character of the respondent-wife. The allegation of the wife regarding demand of dowry has not been substantiated and the evidence on his aspect has rightly been discarded by the Court below. There can be no justifiable cause for the wife to say that she will not be able to attend to her duties at Amritsar if she resides at Dhariwal. The statement of Suraj Prakash R. W. 4 brother of the wife that they are ready and willing to send Urmal Kanta to the husband's house at Dhariwal if he makes arrangements for attending her services at Amritsar shows reluctance even on the part of the brother to send his sister to the matrimonial home. The statement of the wife that she was not prepared to reside with the husband at Dhariwal and the stand of the brother, as has been noticed above, clearly shows that the appellant has got no intention to live with the husband. There is nothing on the record of the case that a request for making any such arrangement by sending the wife to Amritsar from Dhariwal was ever made and that it was on account of refusal of the husband to make such arrangement that the dispute had arisen. In the earlier days of marriage the wife had been going to Amritsar to attend her duties and she bad been coming to Dhariwal on week end.
(3.) IN the light of this background, her refusal now in Court to live with the husband at Dhariwal clearly shows that she is not at all inclined to live with the husband. The withdrawal in my considered opinion is without sufficient reason. The case was put up at one stage before another Bench and the order passed on 6. 11. 1992 shows that parties were unable to reconcile the matter. It appears to me that both the parties being in service, they could not pull on well and it is for this reason that the respondent has adopted strict attitude, by saying that she was not prepared to live with the husband at Dhariwal.;