A wife has a duty to follow her husband in the absence of any reasonable excuse, and staying away from the husband on the ground that he refused to migrate to the wife's place of employment amounts to the wife's staying at her own place without reasonable excuse.

This appeal is by the plaintiff against the judgment and order dated 10.9.90 passed by the learned District Judge, Nagaon in Title Suit No. 4 of 1989. By the impugned order the petition filed by the present appellant as plaintiff against his wife under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for short the Act, for restitution pf conjugal rights was dismissed.

2. There is no dispute that defendant-respondent is the wife of plaintiff appellant and they have one son and one daughter and that the marriage took Place On 27.5.1984. It is also not disputed that at that time plaintiff-appellant was in military service. Plaintiff took voluntary retirement from service and thereafter he was residing in the house of his wife at Jagiroad and started a cycle shop. As the business failed plaintiff-appellant came back to his house at Samuguri in December, 198/. According to plaintiff-appellant at that time be requested defendant-respondent to accompany him to Samuguri but on different pretext she refused to do so and also kept both the son and daughter with her. It has also been alleged that after coming he requested his wife several times to come to Samuguri but she with collusion with her brother and father refused to join him at Samuguri. Thereafter on 20.4.88 the plaintiff-appellant sent a Lawyer's notice without any result. Plaintiff appellant has alleged that respondent-defendant has withdrawn from the society of the plaintiff-appellant without any reasonable excuse and hence the petition for restitution of conjugal right and also custody of the minor son and the daughter.

3. The suit was contested by the defendant-respondent and has stated that the plaintiff-appellant is not entitled to any relief. According to defendant-respondent the plaintiff-appellant never took her to his original house and used to reside in the house of her father at Jagiroad. It has been stated that as the petitioner was in military service and in his absence, parents of the defendant-respondent and her brothers used to look after her. And after retirement the plaintiff-appellant resided at her parent's house and started the cycles shop with money given by her brothers. In the written statement it has been stated that after few days the plaintiff-appellant deserting the defendant-respondent and their children, fled away with the money and he never took care of his wife and their children. So finding no other alternative the defendant -respondent filed a petition under section 125 CrPC for maintenance for herself and their children which has registered as MR Case No. 38 of 1988 in the Court of Morigaon. It has been alleged that after 'Coming to know about this case the present petition has been filed only to harrass defendant-respondent. It has also been stated in the written statement that the plaintiff-appellant filed a false criminal case in the Court at Morigaon being CR Case No. 887 of 1988 and in that case all the belongings of the defendant-respondent were seized but given in her zimma. The revision petition filed by the plaintiff-appellant was also dismissed. It has been denied that the defendant-respondent has withdrawn herself from the society of the petitioner and it has been alleged that it was the plaintiff-appellant who deserted the defendant-respondent and her children has filed this false case In order to avoid the payment of maintenance. A specific statement has been made that had the plaintiff-appellant any intention of co-habitation with the opposite party he could have come and resided with the defendant-respondent at her house at Jagiroad.

4. Both the plaintiff-appellant and the defendant-respondent deposed before the Court and in addition the defendant-respondent examined one 'Mridul Kanti Chowdhury as DW 2.

5. The learned trial Court framed as many as four issues and the main issue was whether the opposite party has withdrawn herself from the society of the petitioner without any reasonable cause and this issue was decided against the prese

Click Here to Read the rest of this document