The court emphasized that the grounds for restitution of conjugal rights must be satisfied by the party seeking such relief, and failure to do so would result in the dismissal of the petition. Additionally, the pendency of a petition for dissolution of marriage may impact the necessity for restitution of conjugal rights.

JUDGMENT :

Aravind Kumar, J.

This appeal is directed against order dated 18.10.2014 passed by the Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Haveri, in M.C.No.45/2011 whereunder petition filed by the respondent-husband herein under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, (for short 'the Act') for restitution of conjugal rights, has been allowed.

2. We have heard Sri M.H.Patil, learned counsel appearing for appellant and Sri Shivsai M.Patil, learned counsel appearing for respondent.

3. Before commencement of the arguments by the respective learned advocates appearing for parties, we made enquiries as to whether any settlement can be arrived at between the parties and the answer was in negative on account of other litigations between some parties pending before various courts. Hence, we have heard the appeal on merits and perused the records secured from trial court.

BRIEF BACKGROUND:

4. Marriage between respondent and the appellant came to be solemnized on 10.05.2007 at Malagi village of Hirekerur taluk as per custom prevailing in their community. Respondent filed a petition under Section 9 of the Act contending that appellant had not joined him at the matrimonial home and from the initial stage of marriage itself, she was quarrelling with his parents and also his handicapped sister for no reason whatsoever. It was further contended that wife use to always insist him to provide for a separate residence away from his family members, which demand he did not accede as he had to take care of his aged parents and at that point of time, wife had threatened to file false cases against him and his family members. It was further contended that wife was in the habit of going to her parental home quite often without informing him and from past three years preceding the date of filing the petition, she has been residing in her parents' house and not discharging her marital obligations. He sought for decree of conjugal rights to direct the wife to resume the marital obligation. It was also alleged that in spite of co-habitation, she had not conceived. She was given medical treatment and during the year 2010, she had left his company and in spite of efforts made by elders in the family, it did not yield any fruitful result. She has failed to come forward to discharge her marital obligation. It was also alleged that a false case was filed against him and his family members.

5. On service of notice of the petition, respondent appeared through her advocate, filed the statement of objections and admitted the relationship. She also alleged that at the time of marriage, Rs.50,000/- cash, five (5) tholas of gold and also motor-bike was given to the appellant by way of dowry. She has further alleged that her husband was in the habit of abusing her by using foul and filthy language and also suspected her character and has demanded additional dowry and in spite of advice given by elders in the family, he was not taking care of her with all respect and dignity. She further specifically and categorically alleged that he had taken second wife during the subsistence of their marriage and through second marriage, he has a son. Hence, she contended that there are no grounds for granting prayer sought for in the petition.

6. Respondent-Husband got himself examined as PW-1 and got marked one document as Ex.P.1. However, appellant/wife neither cross-examined PW-1 nor tendered her evidence. Hence, on the basis of material available on record, learned trial judge has proceeded to allow the petition by directing the wife to join the company of her husband for leading marital life and accordingly, decree for restitution of conjugal rights came to be granted. Hence, this appeal.

7. It is the contention of Mr.M.H.Patil, learned counsel appearing for appellant/wife that learned trial judge ought to have given an opportunity to cross-examine PW-1 and on account of lack of communication between wife and her advocate, she did not appear before court below and was not aware as to the factual p