A wife is not obligated to return to her matrimonial home if she has been subjected to cruelty and dowry demands by her husband and his family.

V.K.Jhanji, J.

1. This is husbands appeal directed against the judgment dated August 1, 1988 of the learned Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur whereby petition for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act (for short the Act) has been dismissed.

2. Marriage between the parties was solemnised according to Hindu rites on 7.2.1984 at Mukerian and subsequent there to they lived together resulting in the birth of a son on 12.1.1985. The husband Anil Kumar (appellant herein) brought a petition against his wife Kiran Bala (respondent herein) for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Act alleging therein that after the marriage, the respondent stayed with him for week or so and then went away to her parents. His case has been that from the very beginning, the respondent insisted for separate mess, residence and business without any reason whatsoever. He averred in his petition that he has been living with his mother and two married elder brothers jointly and had been doing business with his brothers; that there was a joint mess and residence and it was not possible for him to take such a drastic step for separation immediately after the marriage. But the respondent was adamant for separation of the appellant from his brothers and family. He further averred that she provoked her parents and levelled false allegations against him and his family members. He averred that on 6.5.1984, her father, brother and one Hem Raj Aggarwal visited his house and enquired about the allegations which the respondent has levelled against him and other family members. He further alleged that they took the respondent to Mukerian so as to persuade her to live with her husband and while going, the respondent took all the ornaments and valuables with ulterior motive as she had decided not to come back to the house of the appellant. He has stated that in the month of July, 1984, the appellant and his brother narrated the whole story to Shri Muni Lai Aggarwal who is President of Agarwal Sabha of Hoshiarpur. Shri Muni Lal Aggarwal alongwith Sat Pal Aggarwal, Joginder Partap (maternal uncle of the appellant) and Vinod Kumar (brother of the respondent) approached the respondent and it was settled that the parents of the respondent will drop her at Hoshiarpur within a week but they did not stick to the settlement and never sent the respondent till the filing of the petition. He stated that on 20.10.1984, the respondent alongwith her father, brother and Shri Prem Chand and Shri Ajudhia Parshad gathered at the house of Shri Muni Lal Aggarwal and in the presence of the appellant, his other family members, Shri Hem Raj Aggarwal, Sat Pal, Inder Sen, it was settled that the respondent who was in family way, will join the appellant after the birth of the child. His case has been that the respondent has not returned to her matrimonial home despite many efforts made by him to rehabilitate her.

3. Respondent, in her written statement, denied all the allegations made by the appellant and averred that the appellant and his family members are dowry- seekers. She averred that she was kept for about a month with all the comforts but after one month, the appellant and his other family members started sounding her that they have spent a lot on marriage and have constructed a new house on which they have also spent a lot of money and they intended to enlarge the business and for that purpose they require a lot of money. She averred that she kept silent and went on hearing their indirect remarks but ultimately she was asked by the appellant and his brothers and mother to get them compensated and disclosed their intention to bring Rs. 30,000/- from her parents. She requested the appellant, his brothers and mother with folded hands that her father had already spent about Rs. one lac on her marriage and had given sufficient dowry and it was beyond his means and therefore he cannot pay any thing more. She refused to comply with the