G.C. Mital, J. - (1.) The parties were married in Phagan (February) 1976 and out of the wedlock a daughter was born who was about 41/2 years of age when the petition for restitution of conjugal rights was filed by the husband .on 4-5-1984 The husband sought restitution of conjugal rights on the plea that in Aug., 1982, the wife had left the house as she was prompted to do so by her parents and that she was creating unpleasantness in the matrimonial home by pressing that two killas of land be transferred by her father-in-law in her name so that she could live apart. Since it was not feasible, in spite of his prosecution she left the house along with the child without any reasonable excuse. His efforts for bringing her back failed and, therefore, the petition for restitution of conjugal rights was filed. The wife contested the petition and denied the allegations levelled against her. She pleaded that her husband was a habitual drunkard and addicted to opium and in spite of her request to desist from doing so, he did not change his habits and used to give her beating. She also asserted that the husband used to make demand that she should bring money from her parents but later on when she showed her inability, he gave her beating and turned her out of the matrimonial home along with the child. She also pleaded that the application was a counter-blast to the application filed by her under section 125 of the Crimial P.C. On the contest of the parties, the following issues were framed:- 1. Whether the respondent has withdrawn from the society of the petitioner with reasonable excuse ? 2. Relief. On the evidence led in the case, the trial Court by judgment and decree dated 25-2-1985, dismissed the husband's petition for restitution of conjugal rights after believing the statement of the wife and her witnesses. This is husband's appeal.
(2.) After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, and on perusal of the record. I am of the view hat the decision of the Court below cannot be sustained. To find out whether the husband was genuinely wanting to have the wife and the child back or not, he was directed to pay the entire arrears of maintenance due to the wife and child awarded under section 125 Criminal Procedure Code. On 10-1-1984, the husband tendered Rs. 7,800.00. The parties were summoned for 23-1-1986 for reconciliation. Earlier on 18-12-1985 reconciliation was tried. Both the parties had shown their willingness to live together. That day the wife did not accompany the husband along with the child on the pretext that she had not brought her clothes and it was the winter season and asked for a date so that on that date she could come to Court along with the child and her clothes for accompanying the husband. The case was adjourned to 10-1-1986 on which date the wife did not appear and the case was kept for 23-1-1986. On 23-1-1986, the wife shifted her stand and stated that under no circumstance would accompany the husband as she apprehended danger to her life. The husband had brought a few respectables of his village. They persuaded her to accompany her husband and had assured the Court that they would see that the wife is kept well. Some persons from the wife side had also come and they also tried to persuade her to accompany her husband but she was adamant and consequently the reconciliation failed.
(3.) On the record, there is not the slightest evidence if the wife ever felt danger to her life from her husband or from other members of her in-laws. As already noticed above, on 18-12-1985, she was prepared to go with the husband but on the adjourned date of hearing she changed her stand. I find that the statement of the wife does not inspire confidence. Rather the husband appears to be a simple agriculturist and his statement that he wants to keep his wife and the child and has not treated her cruelly, inspires confidence and deserves to be believed. The trial Court found some discrepancies in the statements of her husband's witnesses who appeared as P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 about the period when the Panchayat was taken. I have carefully read the statements of these two witnesses and that of the husband. I do not find if there is any material discrepancy. The case of the husband is that the wife left the matrimonial home in Aug., 1982 and the petition for restitution of conjugal rights was filed on 4-5-1984 and the husband made his statement on 14-2-1985. He gave the period of separation as 21/2 years to 23/4 years. It is further the case of the husband that even within one year of the filing of the petition for restitution of conjugal rights, several efforts were made to bring the wife back but she did not join him. This plea is duly supported by his own statement. The stance which the wife took in this Court, corroborates the statement of the husband that he tried his level best to bring her back but she did not join the matrimonial home.;