The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of proving the truth of the statements made in the petition for restitution of conjugal rights and the need for reasonable excuse for withdrawal from the society of the other spouse.

JUDGMENT :

G. A. SANAP, J.

The appellant-original petitioner has challenged the judgment and decree dated 1-10-2019 passed by the learned District Judge, Amravati in Special Marriage Petition No. 6/2017, whereby the learned Judge dismissed the petition seeking the decree of restitution of conjugal rights.

2. The facts giving rise to this appeal are as follows :—

The Special Marriage Petition was filed under section 32 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869. It is the case of the appellant that he and respondent got married on 4-11-2016. The marriage was registered. It is alleged that one day prior to the reception of their marriage one Prakash David Ghule had made a telephone call to the appellant and informed him that respondent was already married with him. The appellant did not believe it and therefore, ignored the same. After marriage, the appellant and respondent resided at Amravati for few days and afterwards shifted to Pune. The appellant is doing job at Pune. The respondent is doing job at Aurangabad. It is alleged that after few months of the marriage, the appellant noticed change in the behaviour of the respondent. The respondent would not stay at home even on Sunday and other Government holidays. The respondent used to abuse the appellant in filthy language. Since January, 2017 the respondent stopped maintaining any relations with the appellant as husband. She would always remain busy on her mobile talking with other persons. The appellant questioned the respondent about it. The respondent at that time told him that she had already performed marriage with Prakash David Ghule and therefore, could not live without the company of Prakash. The appellant forgave the respondent. He gave her understanding to lead happy married life with him. However, there was no change in her attitude. On 10-4-2017, in the night on the pretext of withdrawing money from ATM Centre, the respondent left his house. He lodged the report with Frezarpura Police Station, Amravati. It is the case of the appellant that the respondent without any reasonable excuse withdrawn from his society. He is willing to cohabit and maintain marital tie with the respondent. He therefore, prayed for the decree of restitution of conjugal rights.

3. The respondent opposed the petition vide reply at Ex.15. The respondent denied the material allegations made in the complaint. The respondent has admitted the factum of marriage. It is contended that the appellant and the respondent being from paramedical faculty, their parents settled their marriage. After the marriage, according to the respondent, the conduct and behaviour of the appellant was not proper. After the marriage, the appellant shifted to Aurangabad where the respondent has been doing service. The appellant would snatch the salary from her and quarrel with her for money. The appellant was not interested to maintain any kind of relations with the respondent. The appellant mentally and physically harassed the respondent. The respondent tried to convince him however, the appellant refused to maintain any relations with her and left her company without sufficient cause and reason. Initially she had tolerated it, however, when the appellant started doubting her chastity the things went beyond control. The appellant lodged false complaint against the respondent and her family members. The respondent contended that with this kind of cantankerous behaviour of the appellant, it would be very difficult for her to rejoin the company of the appellant.

4. In the trial Court, the appellant examined himself as a sole witness. The respondent filed the pursis and declared that she would not adduce the evidence. The learned District Judge on the basis of certain facts brought on record in the evidence of the appellant came to the conclusion that no case was made out for granting the decree of restitution of conjugal rights and as such, the petition was dismissed.

5. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order, the appellant has come in app