The court emphasized that the right of a woman to have reproductive choice is an inseparable part of her personal liberty as envisaged under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

JUDGMENT

Urmila Joshi-Phalke, J. - Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Alleging cruelty and desertion against the wife, the appellant/husband approached to this Court by filing an appeal against the judgment and decree of restitution of conjugal rights in A-Petition No.15/2018 (Old Hindu Marriage Petition No.81/2013) and dismissal of A-Petition. No.4/2018 (Old Hindu Marriage Petition No.52/2013) filed for dissolution of marriage.

3. The facts of the case giving rise to the dispute are as follows:

A] The marriage of the appellant/husband and the respondent/wife was solemnized on 08/08/2001 as per Hindu rites and religion at mouje Anjangaon-Surji, Taluka Anjangaon-Surji, District Amravati. After marriage, the respondent/wife resumed cohabitation at the house of the appellant/husband at Buldana. The appellant/husband was serving as an Assistant Teacher at M.E.S. High School, Mehkar at the relevant time and was shuttling between Mehkar and Buldana. The respondent/wife is also qualified and completed her post-graduation and was desiring to do a teacher's job.

B] After marriage, for a period of four months they resided together at Buldana. As per the contention of the appellant/husband that as per desire of the respondent/wife he was searching a suitable job of Teacher for her. However, she was harassing him for searching Teacher's job and was also threatening that she would not beget a child, till she secures a job. In the meantime, the respondent/wife delivered a male child on 14/06/2002 at her maternal place. After spending of three months at maternal house after delivery she resumed cohabitation at the house of the appellant/husband. As per the contention of the appellant/husband, after birth of the child again she started harassing him on the count that she wants to start her tuition classes at Mehkar.

Therefore, on 01/10/2002 he shifted to Mehkar along with the respondent/wife and son Tejas. Though he shifted to Mehkar, the respondent/wife had not started tuition classes by assigning reason that her son is infant and she has to look after him. The appellant/husband and the respondent/wife due to summer vacation shifted to Buldana and stayed there for two months. In the month of July, 2003 as the father of the respondent/wife was not well, she went at her parents' house and returned back on 16/07/2003. They again shifted to Mehkar on 20/07/2003 and stayed there till May, 2004. Due to summer vacation in May, 2004 the appellant/husband and the respondent/wife came at Buldana. At the relevant time, the respondent/wife was four weeks pregnant, but she was not ready to carry her pregnancy and insisted for terminating the pregnancy. The appellant/husband was not ready for the same and tried to convince her but the respondent/wife was not in a position to listen anything. Therefore, the appellant/husband had informed her mother on 01/05/2004. As per the communication with the mother of the respondent/wife, she told him to send the respondent/wife at her parental house and assured him that they will take care of everything and he should not worry. It is alleged by the appellant/husband that before proceeding towards parental house the respondent/wife quarreled with him, collected all her belongings and went at her maternal house along with son. After reaching at her maternal house, the respondent/wife had not contacted him and whenever the appellant/husband had tried to contact, she had not responded. The appellant/husband called her on 07/06/2004 and requested to come at Buldana by or before 14/06/2004 as there was birthday of son Tejas but the respondent/wife did not turned up nor communicated with the appellant/husband. The respondent/wife on 10/07/2004 by telephonic communication called him at her maternal place to fetch her back. Accordingly, he visited her maternal house but the respondent/wife asked him to obtain the permission of her father.

On communication with the father, the father of the respondent/wife refused to send her