The main legal point established in the judgment is that in a matrimonial dispute, the party claiming restitution of conjugal rights must prove that the other party left without reasonable cause, and that allegations of cruelty and desertion must be substantiated by sufficient evidence.

JUDGMENT

Suvra Ghosh, J. - The appeal is directed against judgment dated 30-03-2016 passed by the Learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, First Court, Tamluk, Purba Medinipur in Matrimonial Suit No. 04 of 2015 and the decree that followed it.

2. The parties were married according to Hindu rites and customs on 23- 11-2012 and the appellant/wife accompanied the respondent to his house. After a few days the appellant created pressure upon the respondent to reside in her house as "Ghar Jamai" and started visiting her parental home frequently. She was always reluctant to return to her matrimonial home. Finally on 27-12-2013 the appellant left for her parental home along with her belongings for good and several attempts by the respondent to bring her back failed. She expressed that she did not intend to lead a conjugal life with her husband. The respondent/husband was, therefore, constrained to file the application under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, before the learned trial court praying for restitution of conjugal rights.

3. The appellant/wife contested the suit by filing written statement wherein she denied all the material allegations of her husband and submitted that her father gifted ornaments, articles, furniture and cash of Rs. 50,000/- to the couple during their marriage and the parties led a happy conjugal life together. Due to insufficient accommodation in her matrimonial home, the appellant's father gifted them a piece of land by virtue of registered deed of gift on 02-01-2013 and also constructed a single storied house therein for them. The appellant further contended that a girl child was born to them on 02-02-2014 following which the respondent and his parents inflicted physical and mental torture upon the appellant on trivial issues. They also demanded Rs. 1,00,000/- (one lakh) from her father and on her denial, they continued to assault and insult her and finally drove her out of their house on 10-08-2014 along with her daughter. Several efforts of reconciliation between the parties failed for which the appellant has been residing in her parental home under compelling circumstances. The appellant/wife prayed for dismissal of the suit.

4. Upon hearing the parties and considering the evidence on record, the trial court, by the judgment impugned, decreed the suit in favour of the respondent/husband. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the appellant/wife has preferred the present appeal praying for dismissal of the suit before the learned trial court.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has drawn the attention of the court to the fact that both the parties having their respective houses in the same locality, there was no question of pressurizing the respondent to reside in the appellant's paternal home as "Ghar Jamai". It was only the desire of her father that the parties should stay in the house gifted by the appellant's father so that they could live in a peaceful and congenial atmosphere and maintain good relationship with their respective parents. The appellant was driven out of her matrimonial home by the respondent and did not voluntarily withdraw herself from his company. She was subjected to physical and mental cruelty by her husband in her matrimonial home and has no reasonable ground to resume conjugal life with him. In support of his contention, learned counsel has placed reliance on the authority in Ravi Kumar vs. Julmi Devi, (2010) 4 SCC 476 and Vennangot Anuradha Samir vs. Vennangot Mohandas Samir, (2015) 16 SCC 596 .

6. Learned counsel for the respondent/husband has supported the impugned judgment and has submitted that the appellant left her matrimonial home with the daughter voluntarily and without any justifiable cause and he is ready and willing to resume marital life with her.

7. At the outset it is necessary to refer to an inadvertent error which has crept into the last page (page-8) of the judgment impugned. The operative portion of the judgment is set out: