The reasonable excuse contemplated by Section 9(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act must be one which would afford a ground either for judicial separation or for nullity of marriage or for divorce.

ALLADI KUPPUSWAMI, J.

( 1 ) THESE two appeals are preferred against a common judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge, Vijayawada, in O, P. No. 130 of 1968 and O. S. No. 250 of 1968 respectively. O. S. 250/68 was filed by the respondent in these appeals against her husband for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 75. 00p. M. from the date of suit and for arrears at the same rate and for Rs. 500 for separate residence. O. F. No. 130/68 was filed by the first appellant in the transferred appeal and the sole appellant in the C. M. A. for a declaration that the marriage between him and the respondent was a nullity or in the alternative for restitution of conjugal rights.

( 2 ) THE parties will be referred to as the husband and wife as has been done in the Court below.

( 3 ) THE wife filed the suit for maintenance with the following allegations.

( 4 ) THE marriage was solemnised on 1-5-1966 at Palakol West Godavari District and consummated on 8-5-1966. The wife was taken to her husbands house at Vijayawada on 9-5-1966. She staved there till about 15-6-1966 and she returned to her irarents1 house. She again Joined the husband in his family residential house at Vijayawada on 23/07/1966 and staved till 30/09/1966. During these short periods of stay the husband and other members of the family treated her with cruelty and beat her several times mercilessly. The husband and his parents made preparations for getting him married to a second wife. Finally, they prove her out on 30-9-1966. The husband married a girl by name Kameswari daughter of one Adusumill Venkatappaiah on 30/03/1967 at Avanigadda. The husband is living with the second wife who was in an advance stage of pregnancy on the date of the suit. Subsequently, a son was born to them. The husband filed a written statement denying any cruelty on his part or on the part of his parents. He stated that it was found that his wife was incapable of sexual intercourse and unfit for matrimonial life. He got her medically examined and treated but it was of no use. This fact was intimated to the wifes father who came and took her away in June, 1966. The wife returned and joined him in July 1966, but even after her return, she was found unfit for cohabitation. She refused to get herself medically examined and treated. He also denied that he ever contemplated or made attempts to marry a second wife. The allegation that he married one Kameswari on 30-3-1967 was false. The plaintiff was not driven out from her house on 30-9-1966, but because she expressed her unwillingness to live with her husband, she was taken away by her father saying that his daughter was not willing to live with her husband and he will try once again and set her cured and send her back.

( 5 ) ON practically the same allegations the husband filed O. P. 130/68 for a declaration that the marriage was a nullity or in the alternative, for restitution of conjugal rights. After the filing of the petition, the wife was examined by a lady doctor in Guntur Medical Hospital. The lady doctor issued a certificate saying that there was nothing to suggest that the wife was incapable of sexual intercourse. In view of this certificate, the husband save up the ground of his wifes impotency and did not press for the relief of declaration of the nullity of the marriage, but pressed only the relief of restitution of conjugal rights.

( 6 ) THE Court below after consideration of the evidence held that the second marriage of the husband was not proved and therefore, the wife was not entitled to claim separate maintenance and residence on that ground. It however, held that as the wife was found not to be suffering from any disability as alleged by the husband, it followed that the husband was responsible for sending the wife away on the imaginary ground of impotency. The wife was sent away without any fault on her part and without any justifiable cause. In the result, the Court below held that the wife was entitled to maintenance as claimed by her, and

Click Here to Read the rest of this document