M.Y.EQBAL, J. - (1.) THIS appeal filed by the appellant is directed against the judgment dated 30-9-2005 and its corresponding decree dated 7-10-2005 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bokaro, in Title Matrimonial Suit No. 39 of 1996 whereby the suit filed by the appellant under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act praying for a decree against the respondent for restitution of his conjugal rights was dismissed.
(2.) AS per the pleadings of the applicant/appellant in the suit, his marriage with the respondent was solemnized on 21-4-1992 at Jamshedpur according to Hindu rites and customs and thereafter the couple enjoyed their conjugal relations at the house of the appellant at Chandrapura for about a month. However, on account of the alleged unwarranted interference by the father of the respondent, disputes between the spouses arose as a result of which, the wife left the house of her husband withdrawing herself from his company and began to live in the house of her parents at Jamshedpur. Repeated attempts on the part of the appellant-husband pleading with his wife to return to him and resume conjugal relations having failed, the suit for a decree against his wife for restitution of conjugal rights was filed by the appellant. The respondent wife contested the suit by filing her written statement making specific allegations against the appellant and stating inter alia that though for the initial few months after marriage, she was treated well at her matrimonial house, but later, her husband and her parents-in-law began subjecting her to ill treatment, neglect and cruelty for non-fulfilment of their persistent demand for articles by way of dowry. The dispute was referred to the panchayat for settlement pursuant to which, the husband who had earlier refused to take the respondent wife back to his house from her parents' house, had agreed to bring her back whereafter she was taken to her matrimonial house where she lived with her husband sharing conjugal life with him and during this period, she also conceived from her husband. However, the demand for dowry and articles by her husband and in-laws continued to persist and she used to be subjected to cruelty, which even extended to attempts made on her life by her husband and in-laws on a few occasions. She has further alleged that when the matter became unbearable and sensing danger to her life, she informed her parents whereafter she was taken by her father to his house and it was under such compulsive circumstances and for such reasons that the respondent has not been able to muster courage to resume conjugal relations with her husband on whom she has no more trust and confidence. On the basis of the rival pleadings, the learned Court below framed the following issues for determination : (i) Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form ? (ii) Whether there is valid cause of action for the suit ? (iii) Whether the applicant is entitled to a decree of restitution of conjugal rights, as prayed for by him ? Both the parties adduced oral and documentary evidence in support of their respective pleadings. On evaluation of the evidences brought on record by the parties, the learned Court below recorded its finding that though the defendant is the legally married wife of the applicant and though the parties have been living separate since June, 1994, the respondent has offered reasonable grounds for living separate and for her refusal to resume conjugal rights with her husband on account of her apprehension that her living in the company of her husband is fraught with danger to her life and person. Drawing inferences from the evidences on record, the trial Court has observed that the appellant/husband by his own conduct was responsible for giving the respondent wife a genuine and valid reason for her withdrawing herself from his society. On the above finding, the trial Court dismissed the prayer of the appellant for restitution of his conjugal rights with the respondent.
(3.) ASSAILING the impugned judgment of the Court below, Mr. Jay Prakash, Advocate appearing for the appellant has raised the following grounds : (i) that the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned Court below is contrary to law; (ii) that the Court below has committed serious error by failing to frame specific issue as to whether the defendant had withdrawn herself from the society of her husband without reasonable excuse and in absence of any specific issue being framed and finding recorded on the same, the appellant has suffered serious prejudice; (iii) that the learned Court below has erred in placing the entire burden of proof on the applicant to prove his case and has erroneously interpreted the term "reasonable excuse". ;