Rajendra Nath Mittal, J. - (1.) This appeal has been filed by the petitioner against the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge 1st Class Amritsar, dated Aug. 24, 1971, by which he dismissed his petition for restitution of conjugal rights under Sec. 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
(2.) Briefly the case of the petitioner is that the respondent was married to him at Jullundur on May 24, 1964. She lived with him as his wife and out of the wedlock, a daughter was born to her on June 18, 1965. The respondent was a lady of extravagent habits and was found of gay society. She remained out of the house at all reasonable hours. She, is the first instance, left the house of the petitioner appellant, in 1964, but she confessed her guilt in writing on Nov. 11, 1964, and returned to the house of the petitioner on the intervention of the brotherhood. It is further alleged that the petitioner was out of job and the respondent put pressure on him for a separate residence. He, however, could not afford to provide her such a residence. Therefore, she had withdrawn from his society, without any reasonable cause. He has prayed that a decree for restitution of conjugal rights be passed against her. The respondent resisted the petition and denied the allegations of the petitioners. She obliged that she was a faithful lady and never remained out of the house. The allegations made in the petition, according to her amounted to cruelty. She stated that she filed an application under section 488, Criminal Procedure code, against the petitioner for maintenance and the present petition had been filed as a counterblast to that application. It is also alleged that even the brother of the petitioner, after a few months of their marriage, give her beating to the knowledge of the petitioner and his mother, but they did not take any action and, on the other hand, started abusing her and turned her out of their house. It is further stated by her that in order to promote good will, she tendered a written apology to the petitioner, but in spite of that he maltreated her. The petitioner and his parents made her living in their house impossible. In 1968, she was again turned out of the house by the petitioner and as her parents also could not accommodate her, sh started living separately. The petitioner and his brother threatended cause injuries to her and for their threats they were challenged by the police under section 107/151, Criminal Procedure Code. The trial Court held that the petitioner is guilty of cruelty and maltreatment, that these respondent has not withdrawn from the society of the petitioner without reasonable cause and that the petitioner has deserted her. Consequently, the trial Court dismissed the petition. The petitioner has come up in appeal to this Court against its judgment dated Aug. 24, 1971.
(3.) I have gone through the evidence of the witnesses produced by the parties. The appellant had produced Jiwan Singh, Ranjit Singh, Avtar Singh, Gurvinder Singh and Smt. Gurcharan Kaur, to prove his case. He also, appeared as his own witnesses. All of them have stated that they had heir seeing both of them and the appellant had been treating the respondent nicely. They are all neighbours or relations and their statements not inspire any confidence. On the other hand, the respondent produced Smt. Bimla Dang and Smt. Jagdish Kaur, who are independent witnesses. Smt. Bimla Dang has stated that she was the Secretary of the Punjab starting Sabha, Amritsar, in May/June, 1968. The appellant came to her stating in that he had certain disputes with his spouse, Smt. Adarsh Kaur and requested her to get the separation effected between them. The appellant had made complaints to her regarding the character of his wife Smt. Adarsh Kaur. In one of the meetings of the Sabha, the respondent hereself appeal with her child and pleaded that he was very much willing to go to her husband's house and settle there peacefully. She (the respondent) stated to her that the appellant was not willing to keep herein his house. She made enquires from different persons in the locality regarding the character of the respondent and was stated about the falsity of the allegations made against her by the appellant. The respondent never told that she was not willing to go to her husband. Rather she was insisting for reconciliation and proper settlement with the appellant, Smt. Jagdish Kaur stated the circumstances in which the letter of apology was written by the respondent. She stated that all the terns in it were dictated by the appellant and even after the letter, the relations between the panics had been far from satisfactory. She also stated that in her presence the at the appellant gave slap to the respondent. The respondent also made a similar statement.;