ORAL JUDGMENT :-Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. Since the second appeal arises out of a matrimonial matter, the parties were put to notice that the matter would be heard finally at the stage of admission.

3. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant husband against the respondent wife challenging the judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Judge, Achalpur in Regular Civil Appeal No. 66/2001 granting a decree for restitution of conjugal rights in favour of the respondent wife.

4. Few facts giving rise to the second appeal and to the controversy involved therein are stated thus the appellant was married to the respondent on 1-5-1997 according to Hindu rites and customs. The respondent joined the company of the appellant husband and went to the matrimonial house to reside with the appellant. It is the case of the respondent that the appellant treated her well for a few days during the lifetime of her father-in-law. After the death of her father-in-law, the appellant started ill-treating the respondent on the ground that he dislikes her. It is, then, pleaded by the respondent that the appellant's family members always used to ask her to bring money from her parents and on her failure to bring money, the appellant used to beat her and also deprive her of food. It was further pleaded by the respondent that on 13-11-1998 when she was admitted to the hospital of one Dr. Bhattad for delivery of her child, the appellant and his relatives took all her gold ornaments. On her inquiring about the ornaments, the family members of the appellant assaulted her. It was also stated in the petition that she had lodged reports in the police station against the appellant and his family members. She, however, pleaded that though she was dragged by the appellant to her parental home, she was ready and willing to reunite with the appellant, and therefore, sought a decree for restitution of conjugal rights.

5. The appellant contested the petition and denied all the adverse allegations levelled against him. He flatly denied that he used to ill-treat the respondent at the instance of his family members after the death of his father: He further denied that her gold ornaments were taken away after she was admitted to the hospital of Dr. Bhattad. It was submitted on behalf of the appellant that the respondent had completed her post-graduation in Arts and since he had secured only a Bachelor's degree in Arts, the respondent always used to seek a divorce from the appellant. It was also pleaded that on 11-10-1998, the respondent and her brother Kiransingh had administered poison to the appellant because of which he was admitted to the hospital. It was then pleaded that earlier he had tried his level best for a reunion but, it was not possible. The respondent had filed a civil suit against the petitioner and his family members for partition with a view to pressurise him. It was also pleaded that the respondent was living separately and had left the matrimonial home without any excuse or reasonable cause, and therefore, the petition for restitution of conjugal rights was liable to be dismissed.

6. On the aforesaid pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the issues and after appreciating the evidence tendered by the parties on record, held that the respondent had failed to prove that the appellant had withdrawn from her society without reasonable cause or excuse. The trial Court held that the respondent had failed to prove that she was entitled to a decree for restitution of conjugal rights. The judgment passed by the trial Court on 29-9-2001 was challenged by the respondent in a first appeal. The first Appellate Court had, however, by the judgment dated 31-3-2005 allowed the appeal filed by the respondent wife and decreed her petition for restitution of conjugal rights. The husband has challenged the judgment and decree passed by the first Appellate Court on 31-3-2005 as the first Appellate Court had granted a decree i

Click Here to Read the rest of this document