It is the duty of the wife to live with her husband wherever he chooses to reside, and she cannot insist on continuing in service in a place which is far away from the husband's place and refuse to live with him.

RAMACHANDRA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a husbands appeal against the order of restitution of conjugal rights passed by the III Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad in O. P. No. 134 of 1969. The appellant husband and the respondent-wife were married on 9-3-1966. The husband is an Assistant Engineer. Structural Design Office employed in the Heavy Engineering Corporation at Ranchi. The wife, a graduate was employed as Assistant Instructress in Gram Sevika Training Centre at Samalkota. After a couple of years of the marriage some disputes arose between the parties and the wife went away to Samalkot where she was employed as Gram Sevika. The husband then filed a suit. T. S. No. 1315 of 1968 on the file of the court of the Munsif, Ranchi for granting a decree directing the wife to come and live with him permanently and render him conjugal rights. That suit ended in a compromise on 4-12-1968 and a decree in terms of the compromise was passed directing the wife to live with the husband at Ranchi and she also undertook not to join service.

( 2 ) HOWEVER, this petition O P. No. 134 of 1969 out of which this appeal arises was filed by the wife under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for a decree for restitution of conjugal rights. In the petition it was alleged that the husband is not a strong-willed person and is liable to be easily influenced by his mother and sisters, that his eldest sister was having considerable influence over the respondent and that she was expressing dissatisfaction with the wife as the marriage was performed without her approval. It is further alleged that at the time of the marriage, the wife was employed and she offered to resign her job but the husband persuaded her to stay on and she continued in service for some time and that she was applying for leave and was staving with the husband. The husbands mind was poisoned against the wife by his eldest sister and there was a lot of ill-treatment by the husbands mother and sister and the wife was ultimately deserted. The husband was aggrieved that the wife is educated and employed and he was insisting upon her resigning her job and also obtaining a certificate that she was relieved from service as a condition precedent to his living with her. The obvious idea is to make the wife helpless and utterly dependent upon him so that she would be completely at the mercy of the husband to be abused or beaten according to his pleasure. It was further alleged that the last attempt was made by the wife by going to the husband in October, 1968 and living with him. According to the wife, there were then no extraneous influences and the husband lived in terms of love and affection with the wife and she also became pregnant and was brought to Samalkot, her fathers place for confinement by the husband himself and was left there for confinement in 1969. The wife further states that the husband obtained a chance of going to the States as an immigrant for five years and so encouraged the wife to resign her job and she resigned her job on 5-5-1969. But again the husband began to insist on the wife securing a certificate that she was relieved from service and that he would then only think of sending her to Akividu their native place. She states that the husband was suffering from a complex that a Hindu wife should economically be helpless and live only at the mercy of the husband. It was also alleged that the petition for restitution of conjugal rights filed by her husband at Ranchi was withdrawn as the wife was only too anxious to live on amicable terms with the husband and that did not even help the husband in changing his outlook and that petition seems to have been conceived by the persons behind the husband as stepping stone for securing the ultimate dissolution of the marriage by divorce and was not at all bona fide. She therefore filed this petition under Section 9 for restitution of conjugal rights alleging that the cause of action for the petition arose on 1-9-1969 whe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document