A petition for restitution of conjugal rights may be refused if the court finds that the petition is not presented bona fide, and there is an ulterior motive other than the sincere desire for a resumption of cohabitation.

1. - This appeal filed by the appellant Smt. Kanta Choudhary arises out of a petition for restitution of conjugal rights filed by the appellant again the respondent Rajendra Choudhary The said petition has been dismissed by the District Judge, Jodhpur by his judgment dated September 23, 1981

2. The appellant and the respondent were married at Jodhpur on November 7, 1976 according to the Hindu rites. A daughter was born to the appellant on August . 1977. On May 27, 1978 the appellant left the respondent's house and started living with her parents. On June 26, 1978 the appellant filed the petition for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the respondent In the said petition the case of the appellant was that after her marriage appellant was ill treated by the parents and the elder brother of the respondent for the reason that the parents of the appellant had not given sufficient dowry and had given insufficient presents on the occasion of the birth of the daughter of the appellant and that the respondent also sided with his parents and his elder brother and started maltreating the appellant with a view to extract money and goods from the parents of the appellant The appellant further submitted that on May 27, 1971 the respondent was forced to go her parents' house and that 5-6 days prior to the appellant's having the respondents' house on May 27, 1978 the appellant was kept confined in a room during which period the respondent and his parents and elder brother kept pressing appellant to put her signatures on a blank paper an 1 a stamp paper for the purpose of preparing a false document and the appellant was denied food as well as water and was also threatened with assault that as a result of the aforesaid treatment meted to her the appellant put her signatures on the blank stamp paper as well as other blank papers & the document that has been prepared on the said stamp paper is void and not binding on the appellant In her petition the appellant also seated that the respondent had forced the appellant to go to her parents house because he wants to marry again & that there was no reasonable cause for the respondent living separately from the appellant. The appellant has also state that respondent is a man of bad character & has illicit relations with other women and is involved with the nurses in hospital and indulges in improper acts with them. The appellant has asserted that she wants to live with the respondent and is prepared to discharge her marital obligations as a wife and that the respondent should also discharge his marital obligations and should not side with his parents in their demand for dowry and should live separately from his parents. In the petition the appellant prayed that a decree for restitution of conjugal rights be passed in favour of the appellant against the respondent.

3. The said petition was contested by the respondent. In his written statement dated August 14, 1978. the respondent pleaded that both the parties belong to the Jat community and among Jats there exists, since long,, the custom of "chhutapa" (divorce by consent) In the said reply it has been denied that the parents of the respondent and his elder brother had maltreated the appellant on account of her having brought insufficient dowry or for any other reason and, on the other hand, it has been asserted that the appellant, under the influence of her parents, was misbehaving with the respondent and members of his family. In the said reply it was asserted that Kanwerlal, the father of the appellant, had made a false complaint against Mangilal, the father of the respondent, and Omji, the elder brother of the respondent, on November 29, 1977 before the Additional Munsif and Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Jodhpur, wherein it was stated that on November 29, 1977 at about 12.00 P.M. the appellant's father Kanwar Lal, had gone to the house of the respondent and that Ma