Harbans Lal, J. - (1.) THE petition by the husband (the respondent) under section of the Hindu Marriage Act, was allowed and a decree for restitution of conjugal rights was passed against the wife (the appellant), by the Subordinate Judge. First Class, Jagraon, vide order dated December 15, 1977. The same is impugned in the present appeal.
(2.) THE facts admitted on both sides are that the marriage between the respondent and the appellant was solemnised on October 13, 1968. Though the same was consummated, yet no child was born. According to the respondent, the appellant withdrew from his society on August 15, 1973, without any reasonable excuse on the plea that she was to attend the marriage of her relation and thereafter, she never resumed cohabitation. According to the appellant, her husband used to maltreat her and subject her to a heating as his demand for motor cycle could not be satisfied The respondent and his parents also nursed grievance regarding inadequacy of dowry. The allegation of the respondent that in 1972 the appellant had taken Rs. 500/ from him for payment to her father and the said amount was never returned, was expressly denied On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed. 1. Whether the respondent has withdrawn from the society of the applicant with reasonable excuse ? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to decree for restitution of conjugal rights ? Relief According to the conclusions of the trial Court, the appellant had withdrawn from the society of the respondent without any justification or excuse and as such, a decree for restitution of conjugal rights was passed 3. So far as the evidence of the respondent is concerned, Tarlok Singh, P.W. 1, deposed that in (sic), he, on the request of the respondent, accompanied a panchayat to the house of the father of the appellant and met her brother However, he (the brother of the appellant) refused to send his sister to the respondent and no reason for the same was disclosed. He, however, significantly stated in examination -in -chief, that he offered to stand a surety for the good conduct of the respondent. Bahadur Singh, P.W. 2, also stated to have accompanied the Panchayat on behalf of the respondent and met father and brother. According to him, the appellant herself was not present at that time. They refused to send the appellant According to the witness, when enquired about the reasons for the refusal, no specific cause was disclosed by them, but it was stated that the reasons were already known to the respondent The witness also offered to stand a surety for the good conduct of the respondent. The statement of Devinder Singh, P.W. 3, father of the respondent, is also on similar lines, but he made an addition that the father and the brother of the appellant had not only refused to send her to the respondent but had even disclosed that they wanted to arrange a second marriage of the appellant. Jatinder Singh, P.W. 5 is the respondent himself who, in his statement, alleged that Rs. 500/ - had been taken by his wife, the appellant, for her father, which were never returned. According to him, this may be one of the reasons for the appellant not to return to her (sic) home He denied that he had ever demanded a (sic) or a scooter from his in laws as dowry In cross examination he frankly conceded that his wife was a gentle lady and of a good (sic) character. Surjit Singh. P.W. 4 deposed to another (sic) when he met Balwant Singh, the brother of the appellant, at the (sic) Patto Hira Singh, and asked him to send his sister back to the respondent. Balwant Singh refused and gave no reasons for the same. In cross examination, it was admitted that he was related to the respondent's father.
(3.) AS against this, the appellant besides her own statement, produced (sic) witnesses in corroboration of her case in the written statement. Harnam Singh P.W. 1, father of the appellant deposed that he was a retired Police Inspector, possessed 19 acres of land, had Bank balance and was an income tax payer. He denied the allegation of having borrowed Rs. 500/ - from his son in law through his daughter. He was willing to send his daughter to her husband provided he furniture security to the tune of Rs. 50,000/ - guaranteeing the life of his daughter, the appellant. According to his statement, he was not living in the village, but used to come there and met hit daughter from time to time when his daughter made complaints of maltreatment meted out to her by the respondent. The witness was having his business at Delhi. He corroborated the version of his daughter to the effect that his daughter had told him that her husband was demanding Rs. 5,000/. According to him, two panchayats had been taken by his son to bring about reconciliation between the parties Joginder Singh D.W. 2, was the mediator on behalf of the respondent whereas Prem Singh was the mediator on behalf of the appellant. It is significant to note that he is a resident of village Roomi the residential village of the respondent According to his (sic) in (sic) when the appellant had come to live with her husband during summer vacation, the respondent maltreated her and even gave her a besting. Consequently, she went to hit house. The respondent and his father, armed with dangs, went to the house of the witness and inflicted beating on her in his presence. Ha denied in cross examination if he was related to the appellant in any manner. According to his further statement, it was in 1969, for the first time, that the appellant disclosed to him about her maltreatment by the respondent. In cross -examination, regarding the beating in 1971, it was clarified that, in fact, lathi blows had been inflicted on his son when he tried to rescue her from the attack of the respondent and his father. Bhag Singh, R.W. 3 who does not belong to the village of either of the parties, stated that he was a member Panchayat of his village where the appellant had been posted as a teacher. In January, 1970, the respondent came to the school where the appellant was working, at about evening time, and threatened and gave a beating to her. His grievance, as disclosed at that time by him was, that the appellant must part with her entire salary to him. The appellant stated that she needed money for her own needs also. Kartar Singh R.W. 4, is sarpanch of village Patto Hira Singh, to which the father of the appellant belongs. He accompanied the appellant's brother in a Panchayat to the respondent for reconciliation. According to his deposition, the respondent was not prepared to have rapprochement unless his wife was prepared to pari with her entire salary. This witness is not proved to be related to the appellant or her parents in any manner, Karnail Singh, R.W. 5, member Panchayat of another village Munuke, also corroborated the allegation of the appellant regarding her beating by the respondent in February, 1971 in his village where the appellant was posted as a teacher at that time. According to him she was (sic) in the house of one Sadhu Ram which adjoined his own house. According to his statement, the respondent demanded her entire salary and also Rs. 5,000/ - which according to the respondent bee promised at the time of the marriage, for purchasing a motor -cycle. Balwant Singh, R.W. 6, the real brother of the appellant, lent corroboration to his sisters version. According to Prem Singh, R.W. 7 he belonged to another village in Moga Tehsil and acted as a go between on behalf of the appellant at the time of the marriage. According to him, the relation between the two spouses had got trained a few months after the marriage He accompanied her brother and other persons In a Panchayat to the house of the respondent in November, 1971. According to him, the respondent's side put forth two conditions, namely, the parting of entire salary by her in favour of the respondent and also the payment of Rs. 5,000/ - as promised at the time of the marriage.;