- (1.) THE appellant-wife makes a grouse of the decree passed against her under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights.
(2.) THE short and precise case of the husband is that she has withdrawn from his company with effect from 22-11-1983 without any just and sufficient cause with a view to put their marital status to an end and has thus deserted him. The grounds pleaded by the appellant for her withdrawal from the company of her husband are as follows : "firstly that the respondent from the very beginning started taunting and teasing the appellant on the plea that she had not brought sufficient dowry according to his expectations; and secondly that on 22-11-1983 the respondent turned her out of his house after giving her severe beating and threatened her that in case she did not bring Rs. 10,000/- from her parents, she would not be allowed to live in his house and since then she was residing with her parents at Jandiala Guru. " The solitary issue, on which the parties were put on trial reads as follows : " Wheher there are sufficient grounds to pass an order of restitution of conjugal rights in favour of the petitioner ? OPP. " After a thorough examination of the evidence on record, the learned trial Court has come to the conclusion that the appellant has miserably failed to prove any of the causes pleaded by her for staying away from the company of the respondent-husband. To my mind, it is not necessary to delve deep into the entire evidence on record and the statement of the appellant herself as PW 1 is enough to throw away her case.
(3.) THE respondent's case is that on 22-11-1983, the appellant went to Jandiala Guru to attend the marriage of her sister; that he also accompanied her to that ceremony and that after attending the marriage, the appellant refused to accompany the respondent to his house. This assertion of the respondent was, however, categorically denied by the appellant in her written statement but strangely enough in her cross-examination at the trial, the appellant admitted having gone to attend the marriage of her sister and that after attending that marriage she did not come back to Sultanpur Lodhi because the respondent did not come to take her back. It is thus patent from this part of the statement of the appellant that she bad no other ground or justification to stay away from her husband. That marriage was also attended by the respondent. If he had turned out his wife after giving her beating, he would have been the last person to go to attend her sister's marriage. Efforts were made on behalf of the husband even during the trial but the wife Smt. Sharda Rani did not respond. Similar was the position in this Court. For these reasons, I do not feel it necessary to refer to the rest of the evidence on record and unhesitatingly affirm the findings recorded by the trial Court.;