Back
1997 Supreme(Raj) 536
High Court Of Rajasthan
Judgename : B.R.Arora,A.K.Singh
SITA RAM - Appellant
Versus
NARBADA - Respondent
C. A. 537 Of 1996
Decided On : 07/23/1997
A.K.Acharya
In a petition for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the petitioner must prove that the respondent has refused to cohabit without sufficient grounds.
Headnote:
HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955 - SECTION 9, 13 - RESTITUTION OF CONJUGAL RIGHTS - DESERTION - ADULTERY - SUFFICIENT GROUNDS - INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant (husband) filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for divorce on the grounds of desertion and adultery, while the respondent (wife) filed a petition under Section 9 for restitution of conjugal rights. The appellant alleged that the respondent had left the house two years prior to filing the petition and was living in adultery with another man, Kailash. The respondent denied the allegations and claimed that the appellant had ill-treated her and forced her to leave the house.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant failed to prove the allegations of desertion and adultery against the respondent. The court held that the respondent had proved that the appellant had denied her conjugal rights without sufficient grounds.
Issues: 1. Whether the respondent had deserted the appellant. 2. Whether the respondent was living in adultery with Kailash. 3. Whether the appellant had denied the respondent conjugal rights without sufficient grounds.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the appellant failed to prove the allegation of desertion as there was no evidence to support the claim that the respondent had left the house on her own accord. 2. The court held that the appellant failed to prove the allegation of adultery as there was no evidence of an illicit relationship between the respondent and Kailash. 3. The court held that the respondent had proved that the appellant had denied her conjugal rights without sufficient grounds, as the appellant had ill-treated her and forced her to leave the house.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appellant's petition for divorce and allowed the respondent's petition for restitution of conjugal rights.
A. K. SINGH, J.
( 1 ) -HEARD the learned counsels for the parties.
( 2 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated 3. 8. 1996 passed by the learned judge, Family Court Udaipur in Civil Misc. Case No. 212/95 Sita Ram v. Smt. Narbada alias Guddi and Anr. whereby he dismissed the petition filed by Sita Ram u/s. 13 of the hindu Mairiage Act and allowed the petition filed by Smt. Narbada (respondent and non-petitioner No. 1)u/s. 9 of the Hindu Marriage act.
( 3 ) THE facts giving rise to present litigation between the appellant and the respondent may. be briefly summarised as below:
( 4 ) THE marriage of the appellant (Sita ram) with the respondent (Smt. Narbada) was solemnised in the month of April, 1984 according to Hindu rites. After their marriage they lived together and during this period the respondent gave birth to two children Nitesh and Kapil. According to respondent, about two years before the filing of the petition u/s. 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the re spondent left the house of-the appellant with her minor son Nitesh and went to the house. of her father. The appellant tried his best to bring her back but she refused to live with the appellant and continued to reside at her fathers house. On 7. 5. 1995 the respondent left the house of her father and the information about this fact was given by her parents to the police. She denied the allegation that she had left the house of the appellant on her own. According to her, the appellant used to beat her and pressurised her for bringing money and ornaments from her fathers house. The allegation that she refused to live with the appellant inspite of his best efforts was also denied by her. The allegation that she had left the house of her father and the father had reported the matter to the Police and Police had recovered her was also denied by her in her reply she made a counter allegation to the effect that the appellant was living in adultery and had illicit relation with several other ladies and he had often expressed desire to marry another woman. Regarding her relationship with Kailash who was impleaded as non-petitioner no. 2 in the petition filed u/s. 13 of thehindu Marriage Act the respondent smt. Narbada pleaded that Kailash was a minor aged 14 years and that she treated him as her younger brother and she had no illicit relation with him.
( 5 ) THE respondent Smt. Narbada filed a petition u/s. 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights on 30. 11. 1995. In her petition she alleged that the appellant ill-treated her and that he turned her out on 9. 5. 1995 after giving her a beating and depriving of her ornaments and on being turned out of her house she went to the house of her mansi Rama Devi, resident of Begu. It was further alleged in her petition that the appellant lodged the first report on 17. 5. 1995 regarding her elopement with Kailash Mali and that in fact she had gone to her mothers sister house and not with Kailash Mali. It was also alleged that appellant was not keeping her with him since 6. 5. 1995. A prayer was therefore, made that decree of restitution of conjugal rights be passed in her favour.
( 6 ) IN reply the appellant contested the application filed u/s. 9 of the Hindu Marriage act and made allegations to the effect that smt. Narbada was living in adultery with Kailash and she had eloped with him. The appellant in his reply to the petition filed u/s. 9 of the hindu Marriage Act prayed that petition filed, by Smt. Narbada be dismissed.
( 7 ) BOTH the petitions were consolidated by the learned Judge, Family Court. Four issues were framed by the learned Judge, family Court. The first issue was relating to allegation of desertion by Smt. Narbada. The second issue was regarding the allegation that smt. Narbada was living in adultery with Kailash mali. The third issue was relating to allegation that the appellant had denied the respondent cohabitation conjugal rights without any sufficient cause and the four
