A decree for restitution of conjugal rights cannot be made solely on the basis of a compromise. The court must be satisfied that any of the grounds for granting relief exist under Section 23(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

( 1 ) IF this case is any indication of the way in which the divorce laws are administered in our courts, there is certainly much cause for dismay. On any view, what happened in this case is very perturbing.

( 2 ). In February 1977, the husband instituted a petition, under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for restitution of conjugal rights. He alleged that the wife had withdrawn from his society without reasonable excuse , and had not returned despite requests. He also made some complaints about her behaviour towards him and his mother.

( 3 ). By her answer, the wife alleged, that, soon after the marriage, the husband began making extortionate and unending demands for dowry; and when they were not met she was beaten brutally and ill-treated in many other ways. She said, he had even threatened to kill her and her baby daughter so that he could remarry. Ultimately, she was turned out of the house with her little daughter and not allowed to take anything except the clothes she was wearing.

( 4 ). The husband, of course, denied the wife s version, and maintained that she had left without any cause or reason . He reiterated that she had misbehaved with him. and the members of his family, and quoted some further instances. He alleged that. in addition to all her clothes, she had taken away cash, jewellery and other valuables with her.

( 5 ). After the pleadings were closed, the evidence of the wife was recorded in October and November 1977. She was examined inchief and cross-examined at considerable length. In answer to a question put at the end of her cross-examination she said : 1 do not want to go to the house of the" petitioner due to his aforesaid attitude . She had earlier described in detail the manner in which her husband had treated her. On the next day, the. statement of a witness called by the wife was recorded in part. The case was then adjourned for recording the remaining evidence of the parties on 15th December 1977 and the succeeding days.

( 6 ). ON 15th December 1977 the judge has recorded that the parties had talked about the (sic) reconciliation and the wife wanted time to reconcile the matter (by which, I think, he means she wanted time to consider the matter ). No evidence was recorded, and the matter was allowed to stand over till the next day.

( 7 ). On 16th December 1977 the judge recorded the statements of the parties. They are recorded in Hindi, so I will translate them. The wife said :

i will go with petitioner (the husband) just now. (She then said) I will go next Friday. The petitioner must provide me with a separate kitchen and must not hit or beat me. My parents will be entitled to come and see me. I will not go to my parents every other day. If the petitioner takes me, I will withdraw my other allegations. it can easily be seen that the wife was filled with misgivings. She was not willing to go with the husband without some assurances. At first she said she would go with him just now , but in the next breath postponed it to the coming Friday. She wanted an assurance that she would get a separate kitchen. But most important of all, she sought an undertaking that she would not be beaten. The fact that she stipulated even for the right to have her parents visit her, shows the sorry pass to which things had come.

( 8 ). Then, the husband s statement was recorded. He said :

I accept what has been stated by the respondent (the wife ). Even earlier her kitchen was separate, and it will remain separate in the future. I never beat her, nor will I do so. If the respondent goes with me, I will withdraw all my allegations, provided she lives with me continuously. the then said) I will make the statement about withdrawing the adlegations when the respondent really wishes to live with me and I am satisfied about that. so, the husband also had his doubts. The chances of reconciliation were obviously not very bright.

( 9 ). After recording the statements, the judge adjourne