A wife has a reasonable excuse for withdrawing from the society of her husband if she has been subjected to cruelty by her husband.

Hardayal Hardy, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal against the judgment of V. S. Deshpande J. whereby the judgment of an Additional District Judge dismissing the application for restitution of conjugas rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act 25 of 1955 filed by Balbir Singh Gupta, respondent No, I, was set aside and a decree for restitution of conjugal rights was passed in his favour against Shrimati Shanti Devi who has appealed against the same and is appellant before us The appellant Smt. Shanti Devi and her husband Shri Balbir Singh Gupta are Hindus by religion and the marriage between the two was solemnised at Hissar on 16-2-1955 according to Hindu rites. It appears that before the appellant s marriage, her elder sister was married to respondent No. 1 and she died about three months before this marriage. There was a child from the first marriage who has, however, died since then. The parties lived together and a daughter, who is now living with the appellant, was born to them. After their marriage they resided together at Viney Nagar. New Delhi, till on. 11-5-1960 in pursuance of a warrant issued under S. 100 Criminal Procedure Code by a New Delhi Magistrate, the appellant was recovcied from the house of respondent No. 1 in Viney Nagar.

( 2 ) ON 25-7-1960 the present application for restitution of conjugal rights was filed by respondent No. 1 on the ground that the appellant had, without reasonable excuse, withdrawn from his society at the instigation of her father, who was impleaded as respondent No. 2 in the said application and has also been made to join in this appeal as respondent No. 2.

( 3 ) THE application was resisted by the appellant and her father who had put in a joint written statement wherein it was alleged that respondent No. 1 had started paying attention to a girl in Viney Nagar whom he wanted to marry and adopted all sorts of means to torture the appellant and practised cruelty on her. A stage was reached when respondent No. 1 even threatened to do away with her life- She sent urgent messages and letters to her father to get her out of the control and confinement of respondent No. 1 and that is why the Magistrate was moved for issuing a warrant under Section 100 Criminal Procedure Code.

( 4 ) UPON the pleadings of the parties the following two issues were framed by Shri Manmohan Singh Gujral (now a Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court) and the case was eventually tried by Shri Des Raj Dhameja. Addl. District Judge Delhi :-

1. Whether the petitioner is not entitled to a decree tor restitution of conjugal rights ? 2. Relief.

( 5 ) THE trial Judge on an examination of the evidence (documentary as well as oral) led by the parties came to the conclusion that the appellant had been maltreated and that there was sufficient material to show that she had been detained by respondent No. 1 and had also been given beating. The learned trial Judge was, therefore, of the opinion that there was reasonable excuse for the appellant to withdraw from the society of respondent No. 1 within the meaning of Section 9 (1) of the Act and as such the said respondent was not entitled to a decree for restitution of conjugal rights being passed in his favour.

( 6 ) ON appeal the learned Single Judge has taken the view that on the evidence on record it was not sufficient to hold that there was any reasonable excuse for the withdrawal of the appellant from the society of her husband. In coming to that conclusion it has alsobeen held that the statements made by respondent No. 1 weie true while the statements made by the appellant had not been proved to be true. It has also been held that there was no matrimonial offence and no ground has been proved by the appellant which would have justified the grant of judicial separation, nullity of marriage or divorce. On this view of the matter, the learned Single Judge has up-set the judgment of the trial court and has granted a decree for restitution of conjugal rights to respondent No. 1

Click Here to Read the rest of this document