Sarojnei Saksena, J. - (1.) APPELLANT -wife has come up in appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act (in short the 'Act') against the judgment and decree dated 24.11.1988 passed by Shri J.K. Sud, Additional District Judge, Ambala allowing the respondent husband's petition filed under Section 9 of the Act.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts are that the parties were married on 20.10.1985. They lived together at Patiala. Marriage was consummated and appellant gave birth to a son. Respondent -husband is employed in Oriental Bank of Commerce. After sometime parties relations became strained. On appellant wife's desire, respondent husband started living separately. In February 1986 appellant wife went to her parental home where she fell ill. On 14.2.1986 she was admitted in the Hospital and her pregnancy could be saved. Appellant's mother wanted the respondent to reside with her at Ambala as their resident son -in -law to which he refused to accede. Thereafter trouble between the two started. On 14.3.1986 the appellant went to her parental home taking away all her jewellery and belongings. She refused to come back to the matrimonial home despite attempts made by the husband and his father. He took Panchayat also, but in vain. On 24.4.1986 she gave birth to a son. Thereafter also the respondent - husband made many attempts for reconciliation, but she declined to join him. Hence the petition. The appellant wife denied all the allegations of the petition. She pleaded inter alia that her husband is having some affairs with his elder brother's wife. She does not want that she should be rehabilitated. She always maltreated her. She was turned out of the matrimonial home by his Bhabi. Since then she is living in her parental home. Her husband never made any effort to call her back though she made many attempts for her rehabilitation. Ultimately, she was forced to file a petition under Section 125 Cr. P.C. for her maintenance. Respondent -husband filed this petition as a counter -blast to that.
(3.) ON appraisal of parties' evidence, the trial Court held that the appellant -wife has withdrawn from the society of the respondent -husband without just and lawful excuse. Hence a decree of restitution of conjugal rights was passed in his favour.;