- (1.) Nirmala Rani alias Nirmala Devi has filed this appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, 1st Class, Amritsar dated 24th February, 1977, vide which her application under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter called the Act) was dismissed.
(2.) The facts giving rise to this appeal are as under: "Nirmala Rani alias Nirmala Devi was married to respondent Charan Dass at Amritsar on 6th November, 1972. No child had been born out of wedlock till the filing of the petition. However, a child was born after the filing of the petition. In the petition under section 9 of the Act she alleged that she was pregnant at the time of filing the petition and that the respondent had withdrawn from her society without any reasonable excuse. It is also alleged in the petition that the respondent started mal-treating her after about 2/3 months of the marriage on the ground of dowry. It is further alleged that she tried to meet his demands by bringing sonic cash etc. from her mother as her father was already dead, that even then the respondent was not satisfied and he used to beat her and turned her out of the matrimonial home; that ultimately on 4th February, 1975, the respondent and his brother assaulted her, caused injuries to her and then turned her out of his house, that thereafter she came to her parents' house and her mother got her admitted in the V. J. Hospital, Amritsar ; that there she remained admitted as indoor patient from 16th February, 1975 to 24th February, 1975 and she was also medically examined for the injuries sustained by her at the hands of the respondent and his brother, and that a case under Section 323/324/34, Indian Penal Code, was also registered against the respondent and his brother. She further alleged that a situation had been created wherein she found it difficult to remain in her matrimonial home and thus she was entitled to the decree of restitution of conjugal rights. It was also alleged that the respondent had turned her out of his house without any reasonable excuse and that there had not been any unnecessary delay in filing the petition nor it had been presented in collusion with the respondent. This application was resisted by the respondent. The factum of marriage with the appellant-petitioner was admitted, but other allegations in the petition were controverted. It was also admitted that the parties had been cohabiting as husband and wife, but it was denied that she had become pregnant as a result thereof. It was also denied that he had with-drawn from the appellant-petitioner's society without any reasonable excuse. It was further averred that, in fact, she had gone to see her mother and at the time of leaving her house, she took along with her one finger ring and one pair of ear-rings belonging to Smt. Hanso, but she never brought back those ornaments when she returned to his house after several months and, therefore, repremanded for this lapse on her part, whereupon she expressed her desire to get divorce from him. She also demanded that he (respondent) should go and reside in the house of her mother so that she could support her mother also by earning income by sewing clothes. He denied maltreatment. A rejoinder was filed by the petitioner-appellant and the plea taken by the respondent in the written statement was controverted and the allegations in the petition were reiterated." The parties contested on the following issues: 1. Whether the respondent has withdrawn from the society of the applicant without reasonable excuse 7. OPA 2. Relief. The learned trial Court dismissed the petition of the appellant, as stated in the earlier part of the judgment.
(3.) Mr. Anand Swaroop, learned counsel for the appellant, has contended that the learned trial Court has erroneously dismissed the petition in spite of the overwhelming evidence produced by the appellant.;