The appeal for Restitution of Conjugal Rights was dismissed due to the husband's failure to demonstrate genuine efforts to maintain marital relationships and care for his wife and child.

JUDGMENT :

A. Hari Haranadha Sarma, J.

Introductory:-

Dissatisfied with the dismissal of his petition/application filed in terms of Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 denying the relief of Restitution of Conjugal Rights, the petitioner in O.P.No.11 of 2003, filed the present appeal.

2. O.P.No.11 of 2003 on the file of the Family Court, at Visakhapatnam was dismissed vide order and decree dated 07.11.2006.

3. Respondent herein is his wife and she is the respondent before the learned Family Court.

4. For the sake of convenience, parties are herein after referred to as the petitioner and the respondent, as and how they are arrayed in the impugned order.

Case of the Petitioner/husband :-

5. [i] The marriage between petitioner and the respondent was performed according to Hindu religious customs and rites. During their wed lock, they are blessed with a child by name Shasidhar Mani.

[ii] In the year 1993, the respondent went to Anakapalle to her parents house for delivery and she came back in the year 1995. Again she went back to her parental home at Anakapalle on the ground of sickness of her brother and never returned. However, he used to visit Anakapalle. On 12.09.2002 the respondent gave complaint to Anakapalle Police that the petitioner is demanding the respondent to bring dowry form her parents. On the advice of elders the same was withdrawn and action against the petitioner was dropped by the Police.

[iii] The attempts of the petitioner to get the matrimonial home restored with the intervention of elders, did not yield positive result, hence, he is constrained to file the application for restitution of conjugal rights.

Case of the respondent/wife:-

6. [i] Petition allegations are false. Marriage was followed by presentation of dowry of Rs.25,000/- and 70 tulas of silver and Adapaduchu launchanams etc..

[ii] For delivery, she went to her parents house in the 7^th month of her pregnancy. Though birth of child was informed, the petitioner did not come to see the respondent and his child and not even attended the naming ceremony of their son.

[iii] The petitioner did not take care of them and not provided anything including for purchase of milk etc., for the child. Thus on neglect, she is constrained to stay at her parental house. Therefore, no bonafides in the petition.

Evidence:-

7. [i] The petitioner taken witness stand as PW.1 and got marked the documents under Exs.A1 to A11 on his behalf. Further he got examined one K.Trinadaha Rao and one K.Ramachary, third parties on his behalf as PW.2 and PW.3.

[ii] On behalf of the respondent, she has taken witness stand as RW.1 and got one Uma Sundari examined as RW.2. No documentary evidence is adduced on behalf of the respondent.

Findings of the learned Judge, Family Court:-

8. [i] The petitioner has admitted that his wife filed M.C.No.30 of 2002. He has also admitted that he stayed at Anakapalle along with the respondent for two months, in June and July 2002. Evidence of PW.2 and PW.3, is not of any personal knowledge.

[ii] RW.1 stated about the reasons for her separate living inclusive of harassing of the respondent and filing of maintenance case and that the application for Restitution of Conjugal rights is filed subsequent to her maintenance case vide M.C.No.30 of 2002, as a counter blast. There was negligence by the petitioner to maintain her.

[iii] RW.2 is the neighbour to the respondent and her evidence is natural.

The application for Restitution of conjugal rights is counter blast to the maintenance case of the petitioner. Therefore, deserves dismiss