The court affirmed the Family Court's dismissal of the restitution petition, ruling that the respondent had reasonable cause to withdraw from the appellant, emphasizing the necessity of pleadings in legal proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

Alok Kumar Pandey, J.

Re:- I.A. No. 01 of 2019

I.A. No. 01 of 2019 has been filed for condonation of delay of about 43 days. For the reasons stated in application read with the affidavit delay of about 43 days in filing M.A. No. 454 of 2019 stands condoned.

2. Accordingly, I.A. No. 01 of 2019 stands allowed.

3. With the consent of the respective counsels M.A. No. 454 of 2019 is taken up for final disposal.

4. The present appeal has been directed against the impugned judgment dated 22.05.2018 passed in Restitution Case No. 225 of 2012 whereby and whereunder petition filed by the appellant for restitution of conjugal right has been dismissed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Vaishali at Hajipur.

5. Briefly stated fact of the appellant’s case is that after marriage respondent came to her sasural and began to live and after staying few days in sasural, respondent went to her father’s house without the consent of the appellant and his family members. It is averred in the petition that during the course of living in sasural, respondent did not live as wife and despite being best effort, respondent was not ready to lead conjugal life. It is alleged that respondent always demanded money from the appellant and when it was found that appellant was unable to fulfill the demand, on that score, respondent threatened to implicate appellant in a false case. On 10.01.2011, respondent went to her father’s house with all ornaments. It is further asserted in the petition that from January, 2011 to August, 2012 appellant made several efforts to bring respondent back but respondent was not ready to come and lastly on 01.09.2012, respondent refused to come at her matrimonial home whereas appellant is ready to live with his wife with all respect and dignity. It has been stated that the cause of action arose on 01.09.2012 when respondent refused to join appellant.

6. Written statement has been filed on behalf of the respondent where it has been mentioned that suit as framed is not maintainable and appellant has no cause of action for filing the case of suit and cause of action as alleged is false and concocted and the respondent submitted the following facts:-

(i) marriage was solemnized on 23.05.2002 and on next date the bride went to village Sahbajpur, Patwa where marriage was consummated.

(ii) At the time of marriage father of the respondent gave Rs. 80,000/-(eighty thousand rupees) in cash and ornaments. After marriage respondent has felt that appellant had intimacy with his bhabhi and appellant expected his wife to live which was very irritating for the respondent and respondent was ill-treated mentally. In the year 2003, respondent was pregnant and it was miscarriage for want of proper care and medication and appellant did not take his wife to doctor rather he started maintaining distance from his wife and appellant followed the suggestion of his bhabhi. The intention of appellant is to live elsewhere outside the village and respondent had to look after her aged mother-in-law at her sasural alone and it was informed later on that appellant settled in Obra, Uttar Pradesh. Respondent tried her best to join her husband at Obra, Uttar Pradesh but she was insulted. Appellant tried to live at Sasural with her mother-in-law getting maintenance from the landed property but she was driven out of the house as respondent protested her husband and since then the respondent was living with her parents at her father’s house. Respondent filed a maintenance case before the Principal Judge, Muzaffarpur bearing case No. 46/13 in which the appellant appeared and the Court tried to reconcile the matter on 15.04.2014 but of no avail. The Family Court proceeded with case and allowed Rs. 3,000/-(three thousand) per month as interim maintenance since 17.12.2013. Appellant preferred Criminal Miscellaneous No. 6010/2014 against the order dated 29.05.2014. The Court referred the matter to mediation centre. The mediation process failed but the appellant proposed for