JUDGMENT

PRADIPTA RAY, J. — The respondent-wife Dalimba Sahu filed a petition before the Family Court, Rourkela for restitution of conjugal rights under Sec. 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinaf¬ter referred to as ‘the Act’). The same was registered as Civil Proceeding No. 165 of 1999. By Judgment and decreed dated July 24, 2000 the Family Court, Rourkela granted a decree for restitu¬tion of conjugal rights and a maintenance of Rs. 700/- per month with effect from April 23, 1996 when the wife had to leave her matrimonial house. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree the husband Pradeep Kumar Pradhan has filed the present appeal.

2. Case of the wife, inter alia, is -

She was married with the present appellant in 1994. Within 10 days of the marriage the members of the husband’s family demanded a colour T.V., Hero Honda Motor Cycle and Refrigerator as dowries. Wife’s father expressed his helplessness and inabili¬ty to satisfy such demand of the husband’s family. As the father of the wife could not accede to their demand, the members of the husband’s family started treating her as an undesirable and unwelcome person in the family. It has been alleged that she was not provided with food and was treated like a maid servant. The husband also actively supported such misbehaviour. He even as¬saulted the wife at the instance of his parents. When the situa¬tion became unbearable, the father of the wife managed to procure about Rs. 40,000/- and gave it to the husband for purchase of a Hero Honda Motor Cycle. As the said amount of Rs. 40,000/- was much below the amount demanded by the husband and his parents, they continued to ill-treat her and did not want to accommodate her in their house as a member of the family. The wife had to lodge complaint before the head-man of their caste. Meetings were held, but the members of the husband’s family did not change their attitude and behaviour. Once the husband even attempted to kill the wife by pressing her neck, but the aunt of the husband rescued the wife. In view of the decision in the meeting of the caste-people her husband took her home, but again he separated the wife and kept in a room. A partition wall was erected pre¬venting her entry into their house. A heater was supplied for cooking. Whenever she was about to cook, the husband and his par¬ents used to switch off the electricity in order to harass her. On the basis of her complaint another meeting of the caste-people was held. The husband did not attend the said meeting and in absence of the husband his father did not want to take responsi¬bility of the wife. In such circumstances, the caste-men advised the wife to stay in the parents' house temporarily till the husband returned and took her home. Unfortunately, the husband never came to take her and all her attempts to go back to her matrimonial house failed. On February 28, 1997 wife complained before the Women’s Commission. Husband did not appear before the Women’s Commission.

3. The appellant-husband has denied all the allegations made by the wife. In the written statement he has depicted the wife as a quarrelsome, stubborn, cantankerous and selfish lady. According to the husband, the wife was not ready to live in the village in kuchha house. She always wanted the husband to sepa¬rate from his parents and to go to nearby town to live in pucca building. According to the husband, the wife was often going away to her parents' house without obtaining any permission from her in-laws or the husband. She even scaled the wall twice to flee to their parents' house. The wife left the matrimonial house on her own and never intended to return. The husband has also denied all allegations regarding demand for dowries and the alleged torture and misbehaviour.

4. Wife has examined five witnesses including herself, President of the Dargagua Krushak Samaj, two gentlemen who were present in the meetings of the Krushak Samaj for considering the allegations of the wife and her father. The husband e